Re: xlink 1.1
Henry S. Thompson wrote: > In one respect, yes: XLink 1.1 defines a simple profile, and allows > the use of xlink:href without an accompanying xlink:type. As a result > of this change such usage, which is already widespread in SVG and > DocBook, becomes conformant. AKA paving the footpaths. I suppose - I guess it's fair to say that I find this severely underwhelming. And my understanding was that IRIs were permitted (though not required) by XLink, as it didn't strictly define URIs. XLink support as a general feature seems to be vanishing, as the copied August message below from Henri Sivonen points out. It seems like there may well be necromancers who want this particular re-animation, but in general it seems likely to stay dead. Zombies and spectres can march the earth, but most folks won't encounter them. I do still regularly dream of XLink-based applications, though - I've just concluded I can't actually have them in the contexts where I'd like them. Thanks, -- Simon St.Laurent http://simonstl.com/ > On Aug 27, 2009, at 16:49, Simon St.Laurent wrote: > >> Simple links are supported in a few browsers, but that particular dream faded. > > Support is on its way out: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=516906 > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=515494 > > The non-support on MathML elements is an accident. Most of the SVG stuff doesn't really use XLink facilities but uses the same attribute names, which pretty much shows how a generic mechanism is a failure in practice.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
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