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

>
>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