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

Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?

• To: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
• Date: 14 Aug 2002 18:41:10 +0100
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <007301c24360$ee52a430$4bc8a8c0@A...>
• References: <f3.1f45acab.2a84eada@a...><015c01c240ee$b5bef520$4bc8a8c0@A...><87wuqug0yh.fsf@n...><007301c24360$ee52a430$4bc8a8c0@A...>
• User-agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.2(beta13) (Demeter)

"Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...> writes:

>  From: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@n...>
>  
> > / "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...> was heard to say:
> > | There is also another approach lurking in the wings, to wit: use a schema
> > | which declares the linking properties of various information items. 
> > |
> > | E.g.
> > |
> > | <attribute name="href" type="anyURI"  xlink:type="href" xlink:actuate="user" />
> > 
> > I think you mean defaulted attribute values. But I think you've just
> > made the xs:attribute element into a link :-)
> > 
> > Or maybe you mean to add a new semantic? Or maybe you mean to add
> > these in some sort of annotation?
>  
> Oops, killed by terseness.  Yes, I should have written something link
> 
> <attribute name="href" type="anyURI"  xlink-type="href" xlink-actuate="user" />
> 
> If it were a W3C XML Schema schema, this would be done in an <annotation> I guess.

I'd rather you stayed with a separate namespace, so I think your
original proposal was fine, as long as the ns binding of 'xlink' is
not "http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink".

That way, the attributes you used are annotations.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@c...
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]

• References:
  • XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: Norman Walsh <ndw@n...>
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Pushing SAX events out onto the Web?
• Next by Date: RE: Pushing SAX events out onto the Web?
• Previous by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Next by thread: Can XLink be fixed?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread