W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2003

Re: An XLink telco issues roundup arguing for XLink remapping

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:57:51 -0600
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030124103825.00b80d80@172.27.10.30>
To: www-tag@w3.org

At 16:45 2003 01 24 +0100, Lloyd Rutledge wrote:
>After mulling over last week's XLink telephone converence [1], I've
>made a summary of issues from the perspective of supporting the option
>of remapping link semantics on multiple attributes.  Here it is:
>
>The most important misconception may be that XLink discussion is
>between "elementists" and "attributists".  Perhaps the groups are
>better described as "elementists" and "choicists", or better:
>"element-alwaysists" and "remapping-if-and-when-best-ists". ....
> I am convinced, as are others, that a remapping
>meeting these requirements can be created and should be pursued.
>
>Before discussing author-based motivations for remapping, here's a
>more direct motivation: legacy.  All of the HTML, SMIL, etc. documents
>currently on the Web, and in any event most of those coming up in the
>next year to two, have no XLink elements in them. 

I have argued that XLink should provide an attribute remapping 
feature since the beginning of the XLink work, so I have--at 
least in the past--been very much in agreement with you on much 
of what you say.

However, I think you misunderstand a key point that distinguishes
among choices for at least some of us, and this point is one that
is pulling me back away from remapping.  It is the question I keep
phrasing as "how low level is linking?" or put another way, "should
the solution to linking be more like XML Base and XInclude (and xml:id)
or should it be more like CSS style?"

I note that XML Base must be written as xml:base.  There are no
remapping capabilities.  And the legacy of HTML's BASE element 
was not addressed.

XInclude must be written as xi:xinclude (where xi is a namespace
prefix mapped to the XInclude namespace).  There are no
remapping capabilities.  And the legacy of XML's external entity
references was not addressed.

The HTML WG itself has suggested [2] that an xml:id feature be developed.
One of the more common forms of this request requires that xml:id
be used as is and there would be no remapping capabilities.  (Though
some proposals do include some remapping features, [2] does not.)
The basic xml:id feature as suggested by [2] does not address any
legacy use of ids.

So if linking--something most of us agree is a very basic, inherent
feature of the web--should be more like XML Base and XInclude than
like presentation style such color and font-size, then it seems
not unreasonable to argue that remapping and legacy issues should
be weighed no more heavily that they were in the case of XML Base
and XInclude.

paul


>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jan/0263.html

[2] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/Group/2002/10/xml-id
Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 12:01:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:15 GMT