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

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

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:10:51 -0400
Message-ID: <002501c26a58$30bb1af0$7c674544@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>, "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, <www-tag@w3.org>

Paul Prescod wrote:

>
> Norman Walsh wrote:
> >...
> >
> > I'm not sure I fully understand the usability requirement. Is it your
> > position that in principle
> >
> >   <a href="someURI">text</a>
> >
> > is usable, but
> >
> >   <a x:href="someURI">text</a>
> >
> > is not.

It would be great to define

<anything xlink:href="..." />

as a simple XLink ...

>
> Beyond XHTML, I think it is necessary to be able to say:
>
> <cv:doctor
>     cv:doctorate="http://.../university"
>     cv:specialty="http://.../"
>     cv:homepage="http://.../"/>
>
> Basically I should get the benefits of standardized link recognition
> without contorting my vocabulary around XLink at all.
>

This is essentially RDF -- except that the RDF syntax defines attribute
values as string literals, so:

<cv:doctor>
    <cv:doctorate rdf:resource="http://.../university"/>
    <cv:specialty rdf:resource="http://.../"/>
    <cv:homepage rdf:resource="http://.../"/>
</cv:doctor>

Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2002 17:29:02 GMT

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