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

Re: [WD XHTML 2.0 ] why not use xlink

From: Bill Daly <billdalynj@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:37:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20020823153712.94290.qmail@web13005.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

>   > The XHTML specification does not use xlink, as
> (I understand) the
>   > working group felt that it was too clumsy to use
> a different
>   > namespace, and they wanted it to look like HTML,
> which uses href=.

So then they are willing to forego the benefits of
Xlink because "href" looks better than "xlink:href"?

Maybe back when it was just "This is <a> and <a> is a
link,"  I would have agreed with that.  But with XHTML
2.0 allowing everything to be a link, what will make
it more apparent to someone reading the code that
they're looking at an element that's being used as a
link?  Would it be "href" or would it be "xlink:href"?
 I'd say the one that actually has the word "link" in
it would make a lot more sense to your average user.

I just see this as something that's going to end up
with people looking back at it in the future, and
saying "Maybe we should have used XLink", then we wind
with XHTML 3.0 Transitional and the long wait for
"href" to die out in favor of "xlink:href" kind of
like waiting on <b> and <i> to die out in favor of
style sheets.

If XHTML truly is an XML application, then it should
be using the XML Linking mechanism instead of making
one of its own.

Bill Daly

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
Received on Friday, 23 August 2002 11:37:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:00 UTC