• To: 'Joe English' <jenglish@f...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:29:59 -0500

Another is controls such as popup list boxes, etc. 

Some IETM systems worked like that.  In the MID, 
we found that independent (aka out of line) 
links were very good for representing some GUI 
controls.  In essence, a frame is just a window 
for focus anyway.  The rest (scrolling, etc) 
are just freebies from the window widget. 

Maybe that is what is scary about Xlinks.  On 
first glance, it is as if nothing is there; on 
second glass, it is like the central ring of a 
spider web; not much there but it is holding 
the web together.

In that sense, XLinks become the superword of 
the web, just above URIs.  Name them and type them.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe English [mailto:jenglish@f...]

This sounds like a compelling use case for XLink "extended" links:
you could link to a particular frame configuration by providing
one locator for the frameset plus a locator for the content
of each frame.

• Prev by Date: Re: namespace reprise
• Next by Date: RE: namespace reprise
• Previous by thread: ERPANET workshop Urbino
• Next by thread: URIs and XML Vocabularies As Code Systems (WAS RE: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented nature)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread