W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2002

Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links

From: Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 10:01:19 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20021002095818.027fddd0@geekserv1>
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>, <www-tag@w3.org>


>
>That is a different issue (I think). It's one thing to say that the
>_semantics_ of XLink are unacceptable for XHTML but another that "I just
>don't like the way it looks" -

It's not about looks, it's about usability from the document authoring 
perspective. RDF, in my opinion, is even worse that XLink in terms of 
verbosity, and requiring a computer scientist's understanding of it's 
function to get a simple link put in your document. That's, for all 
pratical purposes, never going to be an acceptable solution.



>- surely not from the very WG that has foisted
>XHTML Modularization DTDs on us! :-)  Seriously though, consider that XHTML
>Modularization DTDs are butt uggly for the very reason that such contortions
>are _required_ in order to get around the problems that DTDs have with XML
>Namespaces.


Exactly. But let's not forget that XHTML Modularization DTDs have a far 
different audience that the mechanisms for linking between web pages.

Ann

-----
Ann Navarro, WebGeek, Inc.
http://www.webgeek.com

say what? http://www.snorf.net/blog
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2002 10:21:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:12 GMT