- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:43:06 +0900
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Cc: "'WWW International'" <www-international@w3.org>, "'Steven Pemberton'" <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>, bert@w3.org
At 23:16 07/08/29, fantasai wrote: >If XHTML semantics are not associated with XHTML-namespaced elements in >generic XML, then I believe CDF has a problem to solve. That should just >work: that's the whole *point* of having namespaces. > >Looking at XHTML1:3.2, I think Bert's interpretation is wrong and Christopher >Strobbe's interpretation is correct. That statement basically says that 'name' >attributes on <a> elements shall not be recognized as fragment identifiers. >It is not saying that XHTML sent as XML should lose all its semantics. At least >that is my interpretation; I invite Steven Pemberton to clarify the original >intent of that quote. I think you are right in the sense that an <a> element in the HTML namespace is always an anchor, and nothing else. But Bert is right in the sense that this doesn't necessarily imply that this has to be displayed as something clickable (and possibly, as traditionally the case, underlined,...). If it appears in an XSLT context, it's just like any other element some payload data that gets manipulated and output. If it appears in RDF, it is the subject or object of some RDF statement. CDF somewere, somehow either explicitly or implicitly should/would/has something that either (X)HTML-specifically or generically says that HTML is going to show up the way HTML usually does, which means that <a> becomes a link that can be activated. In practice, this is in most cases much less of a problem than in the specs :-). Regards, Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2007 07:04:06 UTC