- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 14:14:50 +0200
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- CC: Chris Lilley <clilley@w3.org>, Marja-Riitta Koivunen <marja@w3.org>, WAI PF group <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > The benefit of having the desc defined within the symbol is that it reduces > teh amount of work required, and provides a simple mechanism to ensure that > people can use well--described graphic elements from libraries. Yes. > The benefit > of having it as a sibling for a use element is that it is easier to write a > player that does not need to dereference the URI of the use element. I have no idea what you mean by that. How can a symbol be used without fetching it? Besides, these descriptions would be different. One is the description of a symbol; the other is the description of one usage of a symbol. > But it > seems like that would only really apply to a generic XML renderer that used > a style sheet to render some textual content, and make no use of Xlink. The former is possible and desirable, the latter is not a good idea. -- Chris
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 1999 12:34:57 UTC