[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: TAG on HLink
Patrick Durusau asks: > Not trying to start a religious war but what do you find offensive > about XLink? (Assuming you don't use the term "inflict" to refer to > visits from close friends? ;-) I see two large problems with XLink. The first is the shift from XLink's early conception as a set of structures that could be mapped into any vocabulary to XLink as a set of attributes in a particular namespace that can be added on top of any vocabulary. That means that every hyperlink must be xlink:href, whatever it's purpose. There's no room for <img src="" /> in XLink. (XSLT or DOM processing is one possible answer to that, but HLink is far less intrusive, far more akin to the original conception of XLink with its remappable attributes.) The second issue is the only-one-URI-per-element rule. While I can understand to some extent the arguments in favor of that from an abstract point of view, in practice it seems bizarrely limited if not simply broken. XLink may be suitable for situations where the designers have a conception of linking that corresponds to XLink's existing structure and where mixing namespaces at the attribute level is accepted as a matter of course. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case with (X)HTML, which has a long history, a slightly different conception of hyperlink structures, and a user base of millions. The W3C appears to have forgotten its origins completely in this case. ------------- Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA http://simonstl.com may be my URI http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
|
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
|