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

Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)

• To: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@g...>, simonstl@s..., xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• From: "Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)" <mbatsis@h...>
• Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 01:12:03 +0300
• References: <r01050300-1015-17D22988B37F11D69F470003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]> <m3r8gu1phj.fsf@p...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020721

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>* Simon St Laurent
>| 
>| I worry about RDF (and URIs generally) poisoning XML, 
>

I don't agree that RDF is contaminating XML; the two technologies simply 
have different semantics and processing - i.e. for URIs (consider 
fragment identifiers for example; RDF is incapable of preserving the 
partition) and some people may be using namespaces in RDF to denote or 
point to schemas/vocabularies.

>How would it do that? As far as I can tell the two are entirely
>separate, except that one of the RDF syntaxes is based on XML.
>
>| [...] So far, I think XHTML has chosen carefully and avoided the
>| really toxic bits.
>

.. while it does seem to handle URIs in a more reasonable way, mostly to 
it's retreive-oriented semantics (apart from namespaces).

>Quite possibly. Personally, I would have been happier if they had not
>only changed frames, but also fixed the most broken aspects of them.
>Pages should ask to be wrapped in framesets, not the other way around.
>

I dissagree. Inline inclusion of documents cannot be replaced by 
framesets and iframes provide a much better and predictable interface to 
ECMAScript and URLs pointing to e.g. images, than XInclude would ever will.

Kindest regards,

Manos

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
  • Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
    • From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@g...>

• References:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
    • From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• Next by Date: Re: Do sheep dream of electric URLs?
• Previous by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• Next by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread