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

RE: XLink+HLink is one story not two

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:46:40 -0700
Message-ID: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E07A972A3@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Steven Pemberton" <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Cc: "HTML WG" <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>

How do I use the DOM, XPath, XSLT or XQuery to process the links in an XHTML document based on their XLink attributes if HLink is used? Or is this an uninteresting and unlikely use case from your perspective? 
 
PS: Does the HTML working group plan to issue a definitive HLink file for use with XHTML 2.0 or are web page authors free to redefine the links in their pages to whatever they feel like in custom HLink documents? The HLink working draft seems to imply the latter although this seems fraught with problems and consistency issues. 
 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Steven Pemberton [mailto:Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl] 
	Sent: Fri 9/27/2002 2:13 AM 
	To: www-tag@w3.org 
	Cc: HTML WG 
	Subject: XLink+HLink is one story not two
	
	


	Part of the current discussion is that W3C should have one linking story not
	two, so it is either/or between HLink and XLink.
	
	First of all, that is not necessarily in W3C tradition. It has 2 styling
	stories, 2 schema stories, 3 layout stories, 4 element selection stories.
	
	But that notwithstanding, I don't think that XLink and HLink *are* different
	stories: HLink was designed to tell the same story. See the abstract for
	HLink:
	
	    "HLink [...] extends XLink use to a wider class of languages than those
	    restricted to the syntactic style allowed by XLink."
	
	The idea is that you can define linking on markup languages using XLink
	concepts, and you could even define XLink itself using HLink. It is not a
	divergence from XLink, but an enrichment (at least that is the intent).
	
	At the Linking BoF at the first W3C technical plenary in Boston, I made it
	clear that the HTML WG is not opposed to there being an XLink namespace: for
	certain uses it does its job just fine. It is just that we want a completer
	solution that addresses more of the XLink requirements as originally
	formulated. (http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-xlink-req/)
	
	W3C seemed to commit itself to persuing this completer solution, and when it
	didn't happen, we went and started it ourselves.
	
	Steven Pemberton
	
	
	
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 11:47:16 GMT

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