[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: linking, 80/20

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: linking, 80/20
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:45:16 +0000
• In-reply-to: <E17iKOz-0001PT-00@m...>
• References: <simonstl@s...> of "Sat, 17 Aug 2002 15:43:04 EDT." <r01050300-1015-8BC65466B21911D683CE0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]> <E17iKOz-0001PT-00@m...>

Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...> wrote:

|> Given that, I have to say that I find the XHTML 2.0 specification's
|> decisions to support href on everything (as in <li href="#fish">fish</li>)
|> and to use the familiar object element for including foreign resources to 
|> be painfully sensible,

| What am I missing here?  What about the loud cries of "we need more than 
| one link on an element"?
| 
| "href" on any element is a straight-up loser. 

I agree.  

The basic problem with href and src is that they are not *links* at all.
They are locators, with a conflated actuation semantic ('href' implying
"replace", 'src' implying "embed".)  

We may also note that bog-standard HTML *already* has one form of multiway
linkage: the <MAP> element.  It so happens to be usable presently with
only one element type, <img>, but it still qualifies as a reasonable basis
for generalization, because the <MAP> element expresses the insight that
multiway linking needs independent structured description.  So, if href
and src are to be retained for their locator+actuation function, it makes
sense to have a container element to aggregate them, and to attach the
aggregate to other elements by normal intra-document reference mechanisms.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: linking, 80/20
    • From: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@j...>

• References:
  • linking, 80/20
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: linking, 80/20
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Architectural Forms revival?
• Next by Date: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof DOM
• Previous by thread: Re: linking, 80/20
• Next by thread: RE: linking, 80/20
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread