Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> >Link harvesters shouldn't need a whole lot of training to figure out >that "href==(xlink:href xlink:type='simple') in XHTML." This is a >pretty easy transformation. In fact, an "XHTML to explicit XLink" XSLT >stylesheet should be pretty trivial, especially if all you want is to >build tools which harvest the links. One of our issues, which has been previously asserted here, is that we want to be as processable by a "pure-play" XML browser as any other XML vocabulary (yes, we'll be provided a default style sheet people can adopt, etc). Anything that then requires arcane knowledge is not going to be warmly embraced as an acceptable solution. We _are_ XML -- and not horribly complicated XML at that -- the basic mechanisms of XML should be able to support XHTML if they are properly written or in the case of a current Rec that has proven less than useful to communities that include many beyond our own, rewritten. Ann >(For our next question, I'd like to take bets on how many times >namespaces will prove a hassle for HTML's development... So far we've >had the three-namespaces battle and now this one, so two by my count.) Funny thing about the three-namespaces battle is that another WG (SVG?) went off and did what we proposed back then, and either a) nobody noticed, or b) nobody complained. I suppose being the 800-pound Gorrila of markup makes people nervous when we try just about anything. Ann
|
