Re: XAG 2.3 and xlink

On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Al Gilman wrote:
>
>We don't need an existence proof from Jim to know there is a problem.
>The HTML WG has taken the position that they have considered XLink and
>found it wanting.
>
>For the purposes of the current XAG draft, where it says
>
>"2.3 Use the standard XML linking and pointing mechanisms (XLink and
>XPointer).
>
>it might as well say "Use standard W3C methods for associating information
>in the current document with information elsewhere, and semantics bound
>to the current markup vocabulary with related semantics used more widely
>or more narrowly."
>
>Can someone construct a shapshot of where the TAG is on the XLink:HLink
>issue?  It is clear that the Web Community is not as much of one mind on an
>appropriate-use profile for binding methods as we appear to assume by the
>current XAG language.

I don't see that your conclusion follows from your premise. It is clear that
the HTML group doesn't want to use Xlink, and equally clear that the SVG
group is happy to use it. SMIL 2 takes an intermediate position.

It doesn't seem obvious to me that extended xlinks have been considered by
anyone, and I am not sure why not. I don't yet see the evidence that we
should either be trying to follow the community in an apparent condemnation
of Xlink per se.

As far as I can tell, the two HTML objections are that it is not possible to
have multiple links in a single element, and that Xlink requires a namespace
other than the html namespace.

I think the second objection is bogus - xml:lang effectively requires a
different namespace too.

It is true that a simple xlink can only have one link in it. But an extended
Xlink can contain many links, with the sole proviso that each one is an
element (and can be annotated, have a role as defined in the Xlink namespace,
etc) rather than an attribute.

Which, as far as I can tell, comes down to an argument about whether things
should be elements or attributes, and another argument about support for
legacy formats. And from that perspective it seems to me a fairly esoteric
architectural argument, so I would like to try and understand it in practical
terms - what can't be done with Xlink, or is much harder with Xlink?

Chaals

>
>Jim, if you would be willing to propose more inclusive language to replace
>the specific prescription of XLink and XPointer, please offer a specific
>text edit
>against the latest Editor's draft, to wit:
>
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/XML/xag-20020617
>
>..and we might get into a TR page update soon.
>
>Al
>

Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 05:11:18 UTC