- From: Walter Underwood <wunder@infoseek.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 08:33:25 -0700
- To: xml-dev <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>, www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org, "xlxp-dev@fsc.fujitsu.com" <xlxp-dev@fsc.fujitsu.com>, "xsl-list@mulberrytech.com" <xsl-list@mulberrytech.com>
At 06:23 AM 5/12/99 -0500, Paul Prescod wrote: > >I believe that the XLink behavioral attributes should be removed. >Theoretically they mix presentation and structure. I agree that they mix presentation and structure, but I also feel that it is worthwhile to capture some common situations. That is, allow people to define link "roles", but start out with a few standard roles. This is analogous to including xml:lang in the XML spec. I'm concerned about XML being less useful than HTML because of a lack of common elements (conventions). For example, an XML author has no way to reliably give a web spider a title, description, or robot hints (follow/nofollow, index/noindex). Also, link roles could be meaningful to an indexing program -- transcluded text should be indexed with the source doc, <a>-linked text shouldn't. I'm hunting down a copy of the PCTE rationale, since it has a nice description of the link roles in PCTE, and how they got to that design. Meanwhile, maybe I should write a NOTE proposing a PI analogous to the robots meta tag (<?robots index="yes" follow="no"?>). wunder -- Walter R. Underwood wunder@infoseek.com wunder@best.com (home) http://software.infoseek.com/cce/ (my product) http://www.best.com/~wunder/ 1-408-543-6946
Received on Thursday, 13 May 1999 11:47:43 UTC