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

Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 01:56:24 -0400
• References: <E17qPSL-0002It-00@m...><68872854568.20020917004759@j...>

[Jeni Tennison]

> But what if you
> had XSLT templates (or some other transformation technology)
> describing the mapping:
>
> <xsl:template match="xhtml:img">
>   <xhtml:img  xlink:type="extended">
>
>     <image xlink:type="resource" xlink:label="image">
>       <xsl:value-of select="@alt" />
>     </image>
>
>     <src xlink:href="{@src}" xlink:type="locator"
>          xlink:label="src" />
>     <go xlink:type="arc" xlink:from="image" xlink:to="src"
>         xlink:show="embed" xlink:actuate="onLoad" />
>
>     <longdesc xlink:href="{@longdesc}" xlink:type="locator"
>               xlink:label="longdesc" />
>     <go xlink:type="arc" xlink:from="image" xlink:to="longdesc"
>         xlink:show="new" xlink:actuate="other" />
>   </xhtml:img>
> </xsl:template>
>

With great respect to Jeni, I think that something has gotten lost here (I
do not mean in her example, just the whole discussion the way it has
developed).    If xhtml is supposed to be a replacement or follow-on to more
or less replace html,  then its hyperlinks MUST BE SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND AND
USE.  Or at least, ordinary everyday hyperlinks must be.  Otherwise this new
facility will not get used, or it will be used wrongly and sour the majority
of web page developers on using it - back to html 4.0, at least it works and
we can understand it.

What is the simplest thing you could want to say in an (x)html document
about a hyperlink?  It seems to be "This attribute in this element (or kind
of element) means a hyperlink".  So start from there.  The whole idea of
different kinds of activation ("show","embed") is bound to be confusing, so
at the very least, its expression must be simple with defaulting to the
current behavior of an href.

If we cannot get to a **really simple** syntax to express these notions, one
that will be clear to most non-specialists and non-nerd html authors, we
better forget it right now.  And it should have few options and no
interactions between parts.  I know that this does not sound like a general
replacement for xlink, but I think it is what is needed for xhtml.

Does anyone else think like this, or is it just me?

Cheers,

Tom P

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration languages]
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration languages]
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • RE: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>
  • Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
    • From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>
  • RE: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
    • From: "James Fuller" <james.fuller@o...>

• References:
  • Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
    • From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>

• Prev by Date: How :: Using XML on VMS operating system on alpha
• Next by Date: Re: Don't Let Architecture Astronauts Scare You
• Previous by thread: Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
• Next by thread: RE: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread