W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2002

Re: XHTML 2.0 and Xlinks (again)

From: Christian Wolfgang Hujer <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 14:48:12 +0200
To: Michael Day <mikeday@yeslogic.com>, Lachlan Cannon <luminosity@members.evolt.org>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <200208111448.12425.Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>

Am Sonntag, 11. August 2002 14:14 schrieb Michael Day:
> > I believe that XHTML could greatly benefit from the includsion of Xlinks
> > to replace the current HTML links, without being any harder to use than
> > it currently is. Why wouldn't you go with something that can be much
> > more powerful when people are ready for it, but easy to slip into?
>
> Seems to me that people are silently balking at the thought of trying to
> convince the world to use xlink:href="" instead of href="". The little
> syntactical issues are the hardest to overcome, especially as that xlink
> namespace prefix will have to be declared somewhere, and few HTML authors
> understand (or are even aware of) namespaces.

Declaration:
what about
<!ATTLIST html
	...
	xmlns:xlink	CDATA	'http://www.w3.org...' #FIXED
>


But the spec very obviously anyway is only for those HTML authors that understand namespaces.
The big rest generally even doesn't know that HTML specifications and the W3C exist.

From an egoistic programmer's point of view:
"The spec is for me and I want XLink!"

> The unstated rule must be that only one extra namespace declaration can be
> added with each major revision. XHTML 1 added the XHTML namespace, XHTML 2
> adds the XForms namespace, perhaps XHTML 3 will add XLink...?
Such a rule, wether stated or unstated, must be broken if consistency with other standards is in danger.

XHTML 2.0 is a chance to break with the old and then again be forwards compatible for a while.
If XHTML 2.0 won't use XLink and XHTML 3.0 will do, XHTML 2.0 and XHTML 3.0 will be incompatible again!

> Suggestion: the XHTML 2 specification could state that href and any of the
> other link related attributes are included by reference from the XLink
> specification. No namespaces required, so everyone gets the semantics
> without having to worry about the syntax. Generic XML processors crawling
> the web won't recognise them as XLinks, but so what? There will be
> billions of old HTML files filled with non-XLink links, so everyone will
> follow unadorned hrefs anyway.
Isn't "without having to worry about the syntax" what "we" are trying to get rid of with XML and XHTML?

There's a standard, and either a document is valid or it isn't.

There's a tool, and either it produces valid (X)HTML and then may call itself (X)HTML tool or id doesn't produce valid (X)HTML and then it may not call itself (X)HTML tool.

I have enough of this lame pseudo-HTML on the web because it is a big stumble stone for all people not using Windows / Internet Explorer with two good not color-blind eyes using a standard 1024x768 resolution and a right-handed 2-button-mouse.

Isn't XML and XHTML about getting rid of that pseudo-HTML?
Then, consistency is a stepping stone that we must jump on!


My 2 cents
Greetings
-- 
Christian Wolfgang Hujer
Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter
ITCQIS GmbH
Telefon: +49 (089) 27 37 04 37
Telefax: +49 (089) 27 37 04 39
E-Mail: mailto:Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com
WWW: http://www.itcqis.com/
Received on Sunday, 11 August 2002 08:48:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:52 GMT