- From: Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:03:14 -0500
- To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>, "Paul Prescod" <pprescod@blastradius.com>
> -----Original Message----- > From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of > Chris Lilley > >>> Part of the issue is that some folks do not reliably distinuish > >> between an attribute of type anyURI, which there can be lots of per > >> element, and a link (which can have only one such attribute that forms > >> the link URI, if there is to be any metadata also associated with > >> that link using standard and readily recognisable attribute names). > > AN> Actually I think it's more of a problem of some people assuming > AN> that a link is restricted in such a manner (to one attribute > AN> forming a link URI). That's NOT been the case until XLink decided > AN> to make it so, despite significant outcry. > > Could you give some examples of a language which does not have such a > restriction? Sure, any language not based on XLink. The problem with the argument asserted above, is that it presumes a commonly defined semantic for a "link". XLink has provided *a* definition of a link, more precisely it defines "an XLink link", and an XLink linking element. [1] It should be noted that that this passage goes on to state: ..."The term "link" as used in this specification refers only to an XLink link, though nothing prevents non-XLink constructs from serving as links.)..." Given that there's not a larger, global definition of a link, we cannot say that XLink's interpretation, which has been controversial, is the definition to be applied to all languages. That would be like asserting "You don't know how to play chess. You used to know, be we have changed it so that the queen can only move forward and backward now." Ann 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/#N789
Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 11:18:37 UTC