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

Re: two failings of XLink

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:11:50 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <r01050300-1015-6E067350D17B11D68A750003937A08C2@[]>

> > I see two large technical problems with XLink in general, and both 
> > have a negative effect on its appropriateness for HTML.
> I don't recall anyone proposing that XLink be used in HTML.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that XHTML is anything but the further
extension of the HTML vocabulary with an XML syntax.  Given that XHTML
uptake so far has been minimal, I don't have any qualms about that

> > The first is the shift from XLink's early conception as a set of
> > structures that could be mapped into any vocabulary to XLink as a
> > set of attributes in a particular namespace that can be added on
> > top of  any vocabulary.  That means that every hyperlink must be
> > xlink:href, whatever it's purpose. 
> How then do you interpret the statement, "The term "link" as used in
> this specification refers only to an XLink link, though nothing
> prevents non-XLink constructs from serving as links." in the XLink
> REC?

If I interpret that liberally, I'd say that it's carte blanche for the
XHTML Working Group to do whatever it likes with XHTML without any
consideration for the mire of "XLink links".  

I suspect it's mean to keep XLink from prohibiting its own usage in
specs which have a broader vision of hyperlinking than XLink does - XML
Topic Maps comes to mind, as does RDF.

Interpreted more narrowly, I'd say it's meaningless prose that doesn't
address the imposition of XLink on XHTML that the TAG has proposed.

Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid: is another possibility altogether
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 14:11:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:34 UTC