Re: two failings of XLink

At 3:15 PM +0100 9/27/02, Jeni Tennison wrote:


>Just to be clear: you're advocating using XLink syntax (xlink:href
>attributes etc.) but ignoring XLink semantics (namely the distinction
>between simple and extended links).

Not at all. I'm saying I do want to use XLinks, both syntax and 
semantics. However, I want to use simple link syntax and semantics 
rather than extended link syntax and semantics. I think multiple 
simple links are a good fit for XHTML's needs.

>You're also advocating that XHTML is a "special case" as a markup
>language and therefore should be treated differently from other markup
>languages when it comes to tool support.
>

Yes, I'm advocating that it's a special case, but not for the reason 
you cite. I think it's a special case because of the vast installed 
base of hypertext. Thus as a practical matter any reasonable tool 
will treat HTML first and generic XML second.
-- 

+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
|          XML in a  Nutshell, 2nd Edition (O'Reilly, 2002)          |
|              http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian2/              |
|  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0596002920/cafeaulaitA/  |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|  Read Cafe au Lait for Java News:  http://www.cafeaulait.org/      |
|  Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.cafeconleche.org/    |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+