W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 2005

Re: <spoiler> element

From: Oskar Welzl <lists@welzl.info>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:12:16 +0100
To: Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
Cc: Devin Bayer <devin@freeshell.org>, Jeremy Rand <jeremy@asofok.org>, www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <1134033136.11971.20.camel@erde.hormayrgasse>

There are various opinions on this topic; me, myself and I all would
happily add xlink:type="simple" if, in return, we'd get
xlink:type="extended" and external linkbases. If, in return, we'd use
standards in XHTML, rather than home-brew proprietary solutions; the
same standards that are used in Open Document, SVG, XTM, XBRL...
Maybe it's more verbose than people are used to, maybe extended links
and external linkbases are more difficult to implement - but: hey, they
are hoping for UAs to deal with the Metainformation Attributes Module as
well, aren't they? 

But, as I said earlier: This topic is probably dead as can be, google
for "xlink xhtml" and you'll find everything has been said and done.
(I like these hopeless cases, though; anybody for a new "@hreflang in
XHTML2"-thread? I still believe Anne got it all wrong in
http://annevankesteren.nl/2004/06/hreflang-and-type ;-)...)

Oskar


Am Mittwoch, den 07.12.2005, 18:10 -0500 schrieb Kelly Miller:
> XLink as it is right now would be very bad for XHTML.  I seriously doubt 
> page authors will want to have to declare a simple link EVERY SINGLE 
> TIME they want to have a link.
> 
> Oskar Welzl wrote:
> 
> >Shall we try one more "XLink in XHTML 2.0"?
> >Count my vote. - But I'm afraid I'm too late. Again. :-(
> >  
> >
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2005 09:12:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:04 GMT