Re: XLink 1.1: Xlink vs "legacy" linking

* Norman Walsh wrote:
>/ Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> was heard to say:
>| What do you mean by "can"? Can I make a fully conforming XHTML+XLink
>| user agent that does not observe any of the XLink processor require-
>| ments? All I want to do is to make a XHTML+XLink user agent that fully
>| complies with all XLink and XHTML requirements, I think this is not
>| currently possible, so either this is made possible or the draft needs
>| to point out that making such a user agent is a bad idea.
>
>The XLink attributes are not allowed on XHTML elements: they aren't in
>the XHTML schema. So an XHTML+XLink processor would have to know how
>to process invalid XHTML. It's free, IMHO, to follow the XLink
>semenatics or the XHTML semantics, or offer the user a choice, or
>throw up its hands and claim "error".
>
>If XLink was added to XHTML, then XHTML would have to add the XLink
>attributes to elements in the XHTML namespace. If XHTML added "href"
>and "xlink:href" to the same element, XHTML would have to say what to
>do. (I'd say "don't do that" but that's just me.)

Let FooML be a XML format with legacy linking mechanisms that allows use
of arbitrary foreign attributes such that a conflict between XLink 1.1
linking and the legacy linking could arise. I want to make a FooML +
XLink 1.1 implementation. No errors, same problem. Also note that XHTML
M12N allows to make a XHTML 1.1 + XLink 1.1 document type.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/