From: "Andy Switala" <[log in to unmask]>
> There's also the issue of why use METS/XLink when
> * The schema appears to be fully compliant with W3C/XLink (modulo the
> * Third party tools, stylesheets, etc. are far more likely to support
> Since MODS 3.0 draft is already backwards-incompatible with MODS 2.0 ,
> why not take the opportunity to use a standard linking syntax rather than
> identical in-house syntax? Alternately, if partial
> were desired, the xlink:simpleLink attribute group in the 3.0 schema could
> be extended to allow attributes from either namespace, with the METS
> namespace being deprecated.
We're looking into this, and currently getting clarification from Mets on
why they took the approach they did. Thanks.