W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > November 2004

Re: Updating XLink?

From: Daniel Veillard <daniel@veillard.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:25:34 +0100
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20041112152534.GA22158@daniel.veillard.com>

On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 06:56:26AM -0800, Norman Walsh wrote:
> The XLink Rec, as written, requires the xlink:type attribute on all
> XLink elements[1]. It's the xlink:type that tells the link processor
> what to do. When XLink was developed, I think we imagined that a DTD
> default could almost always provide a value for xlink:type and authors
> wouldn't ordinarily have to provide it.
> 
> But in reality, documents don't always have a DTD, and even when they
> do, lots of applications don't read the external subset. That means
> that authors can only rely on conformant XLink processors to do the
> right thing if the author provides the xlink:type attribute on every
> XLink'd element:
> 
>   <link xlink:href="http://..." xlink:type="simple">...</link>
> 
> In retrospect, it seems obvious to me that an element that has an
> xlink:href but does not have an xlink:type should be treated as if it
> had a "simple" link type.

  Sounds right to me.

> It seems like a simple, easy change to make in a 1.1 spec. That
> probably means it's impossible :-), but does anyone else have the will
> to try?

I would feel that it's the right thing to do technically, but politically:
  - Are we (Core WG) responsible for XLink ? 
  - Do we really want to reopen this, I already see the namespace prefix
    question raised again ! The scars are not fully healed yet from my 
    perspective...

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
daniel@veillard.com  | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
http://veillard.com/ | 
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 15:23:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:31 GMT