W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2001

Re: Another approch to style hyperlinks

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 18:48:44 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
cc: <www-style@w3.org>, <bert@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.31.0108021847030.800-100000@HIXIE.netscape.com>
On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>
> * Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>>>
>>> I came to the conclusion, that I don't like the @link rule syntax.
>>> [...]
>>
>> Personally, I do not really understand why we need this to be in CSS at
>> all. Stylesheets are supposed to be optional, but links are an inherent
>> part of the data. What's wrong with simply relying on XLink to tell us
>
> ...or semantics of the used document language...

agreed

>> what is a link?
>
> Well, authors would be able to add extended hyperlinking capabilities to
> documents the document language didn't consider.

Thus XLink link bases.

> Take the longdesc attribute as example, HTML 4 defines it to carry an
> URI but not if and how users may access the resource behind it, nor
> how it should be presented to the user. I think another design goal is
> to allow user agents, that don't know the used document language
> and/or don't know XLink are able to present the document anyway in a
> appropriate manner.

There are two issues here. Link identification, and link style and
behaviour. I believe the first is out of the scope of CSS, and the second
is very much _in_ the scope of CSS.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                            )\     _. - ._.)   fL
Invited Expert, CSS Working Group                     /. `- '  (  `--'
The views expressed in this message are strictly      `- , ) -  > ) \
personal and not those of Netscape or Mozilla. ________ (.' \) (.' -' ______
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 21:48:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:10 GMT