W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2004

Re: [css3-hyperlinks] inclusion of Clink in next WD

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 10:01:29 -0500
Message-Id: <200403091501.i29F1Uca007133@nerd-xing.mit.edu>
To: George Chavchanidze <gch@rmi.acnet.ge>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

> Yes, but there is one important psychological factor, even if simple xlinks
> are really simple webmaster encounters new not too simple language Xlink
> (more precisely even three new languages XLink, Xpointer, XPath).

Er, no.  Ideally the webmaster encounters a simple tutorial with an example
they can copy/paste, just like for all the stuff they do with HTML.

If they decide to dig deeper, they encounter this other stuff, but the chances
of that happening are pretty low if decent tutorials happen.

> Note also that even simple Xlinks are not really so simple, for instance if
> you need to make link that points to some part of standalone XML doc you
> can't use id and need to use XPath.

As pointed out, this problem is shared by ALL links.  CSS ones included.

> However apart of convenience, main advantage of CSS linking extensions is
> better flexibility. Consider for instance markup
> <element url="http://sample.com/sample.png">PNG Image</element>

So now we're assigning semantics using CSS, basically?  This is a job for XSLT
(transform into a language you _do_ know; XLink if nothing else) or possibly
for behavioral extensions.  In fact, it's a perfect job for the latter.  Of
course behavioral extensions are vastly more complex than XLink....

> No, Xlink is dumb language that lacks flexibility and is not extensible.

You mean it's not designed to solve the problems you're trying to solve?
That's true.  That does not make it either dumb or non-extensible.

> Another issue that I mentioned previously on this list is that CSS linking
> extensions are invaluable in default style sheets for XML based languages
> that have they own linking mechanism (XHTML, DocBook, TEI and many
> others).

UA processing can simply use XSLT or behavioral extensions as I mention above.
The ease-of-use arguments don't even hold water here, since the people writing
these know what they are doing, typically.

So so far the only compelling reason I see for CSS linking is for generated
content.

The question remains of what the style:

:not(:link) { link: whatever }

should do.

Boris
-- 
If you put garbage in a computer nothing comes out but
garbage.  But this garbage, having passed through a
very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and none
dare criticize it.
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2004 10:02:39 GMT

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