<Comments from Max:
<There is really no alternative>.
<OK, lets <invent our own <linking/referencing standard, but it's not <gonna make life any easier.
No, we don't want to invent one, we want to re-use an existing one that has good industry support, so we have an answer to emails like Michael Bain's email to Ram "...Although XLink is ideal for XML references in theory we can't find a way to put it into practice (with processors, parsers etc)".
<Personally, I don't see any problem with <xLink. All we really need to
<do is to make xLink optional and remove <the xLink schema.
OK, if Max can't see a problem and Michael can, it would be good if they can engage to clear it up and we can take that knowledge forward.
Max has taken a lot of time and effort to produce the xLink guidance doc so it would be crazy to waste it. Once it has the xBRL-proposed URI change in it, we are sweet, yes? At the very least xBRL will use it!
Then the only question remaining is, do we offer guidance on any other form of linking/referecing or not, and if so, what is it, and who can draft it?