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

Re: two failings of XLink

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:06:52 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <r01050300-1015-FD7A97FBD21911D68A750003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>

> At 3:58 PM -0400 9/26/02, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> >I'm still not quite sure why you started out by saying:
> >> There is no one-URI per element rule in XLink. there is a one-URI
> >> per tag rule. That'sa very different thing.
> >
> 
> Consider this example:
> 
> <object xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/xlink">
>    <longdesc xlink:href="http://www.example.com"/>
>    <src xlink:href="http://www.example.org"/>
>    <someotherlink xlink:href="http://www.example.net"/>
>    Look Mom! We can put alternate text here!
>    We can even <strong>markup</strong> the alternate text.
> Hell, we can even provide a classic HTML
>    <img src="http://www.example.org"/> for browsers that don't support
>    XHTML2. I learned this trick from Java.
> </object>
> 
> This img element has *3* links. The img element is not just about 
> it's start tag. It includes all its content.

Elliotte, I think I have to give up.  So far as I can tell, you're using
definitions of tags and elements that don't correspond to my
understandings of their usage.

The img element is an element, whether it has an empty tag or a start
tag and and an end tag.  If it contains child elements, or is wrapped in
other elements, I count that as a multiple-element solution, not just a
multi-tag solution.

"One-URI per tag" is completely meaningless, so far as I can tell.
"One-URI per element" makes far more sense.

-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 09:06:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:11 GMT