Re: Hypermedia - Why

On 25/07/2012 16:21, Rushforth, Peter wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: David Carlisle
>> [mailto:davidc@nag.co.uk]

>> but if you only understand the links on a per-language basis there
>> is not much to be gained (and something to be lost) in using a
>> shared markup for links and nothing else.
>>
>> The XHTML2 designers flat refused to use prefixed attributes for
>> linking in XHTML2. With good reason they wanted href=... rather
>> than xml:href= or xlink:href=.
>
> Did they not want the colon, or the namespaces?  Because as I
> recently learned, colons do not imply namespaces, and xml: is usable
> by non-namespace aware xml processors.

They didn't want either. They wanted href= because that's what people
expected and it looks nicer. Arguing that a colon-name for an undeclared
namespace is legal is only legitimate if you are using a non-namespace
aware system and xhtml2 was already committed to being defined in the
xhtml namespace (but if you use xml: that isn't an issue anyway as it
doesn't need to be declared).

>
>> The designers of any other language are likely to do likewise. I
>> suspect that I could predict with some accuracy that if xml:href
>> were standardised MathML for example wouldn't use it as it has
>> several different uses of URI distinguished by attribute name.
>> MathML uses
>>
>> href="" altimg="" cdgroup="" src="" definitionURL=""
>>
>> These all have a defined meaning in _MathML_ and nothing would be
>> gained (and those meanings would be lost) if one or more of them
>> were changed to use xml:href.
>
> In the spec I was reading, definitionURL says that it is a URI to a
> CD. What language is the dictionary available in?  What format?

whatever you like, English prose, mathematica code, ....

>
> I can see that in application/mathml+xml there is an definition of
> their meaning.  But what about a composite document which encloses
> some mathml and some mapml, say.  Should I use @href, @src from the
> MathML definition?  Or use xlink:href?  OK, there is no xlink:src.

You use mathml attributes on mathml elements. That seems pretty clear.
MathML is _usually_ embedded in something else (xhtml, html, docbook,
tei) but the meaning of mathml's attributes don't change.

>
>
>>
>> I know something about MathML which is why I use it as an example,
>> but I don't see why editors of other languages would feel any
>> different about the URI attributes in languages that they
>> maintain.
>
> I agree.  I would not force these things on anybody, but they should
>  be there if you need them.


Sorry to keep pushing but that isn't enough. Just to say something
should be specified because it might be useful if you need them is not
sufficient if you can't supply an example of at least one case where
they actually _could_ be used.

> And if they are there _in the future_, it may be that language
> designers (and in XML, isn't that just about everybody) may decide
> to use them.

I am asking why? Given all the evidence I see is that language designers
would not use them even if they were defined.

>
>>
>>
>> So I would say that the jury is still out and as yet no example
>> has been shown where an application could use the proposed
>> attributes.
>
> Why is it I feel my feet only touching by their toes?

sorry:-) but as shown in the parallel discussion over in micro-xml.
It's best to understand the ground rules before starting. I'm only
pushing you to provide examples as no one else is offering to provide
them and I honestly can not come up with any myself.

>
> Peter
>

David

________________________________________________________________________
The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England
and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is
powered by MessageLabs. 
________________________________________________________________________

Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2012 15:35:46 UTC