(Henrik Martensson) writes:
>I have a bit of trouble understanding why XLink hasn't cought on. As
>W3C recommendations go, it is one of the more useful. XLinks are no
>more difficult to implement than the other linking solutions that
>litter W3C recommendations, and XLinks have the benefit of offering
>standardized and link processing and the promise of reusable link
>processing software.
I have a few answers to that one:
* no Microsoft support
* limited browser support generally
* too many years in the making
* most people still don't get/want multi-ended links
* XPointer was slow to arrive, over-complex when it arrived
* standardization in linking isn't that exciting anyway
* overlaps with RDF and Topic Maps for more abstract possibilities
That's a brief list. Given more time, I can certainly find more.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
