RE: XLink 2.0 Requirements
Hi Elliotte, Thanks for posting these. <xhtml:form xlink:type="simple" method="post" xlink:href="http://submit.example.com" xlink:arcrole="http://www.example.com/post"> I can's see how this is an improvement. In fact, it's probably worse than the XLink-less markup, since a generic XLink processor (which wouldn't know anything about this specific arcrole or POSTs) would see this as encouragement to spider the submit URL. <xhtml:object xlink:type="extended"> <href xlink:type="locator" xlink:href="http://link.example.com"/> <longdesc xlink:type="locator" xlink:href="http://desc.example.com"/> </xhtml:object> Are you sure this works as intended? Wouldn't a resource-type element be needed at a minimum, to stand in for the local resource? And what would be the semantic difference between just having two separate simple links? <xhtml:object> <href xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://link.example.com" xlink:actuate="onPrimaryRequest"/> <longdesc xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://desc.example.com" xlink:actuate="onSecondaryRequest" xlink:show="new"/> </xhtml:object> But the point I wanted to drive home is the 'actuate' values. The important piece that XLink could add is something to distinguish between the two ways to actuate the two different links. Same issue--the spec hard codes a single value "onRequest", and later cases come up where a 2nd value is needed. Thanks, .micah
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format