Re: XAG 2.3 and xlink

At 12:51 PM 2002-09-02, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

>Hi, that review was member-confidential so I need to get permission from the
>authors and contributors before we could release it. (This is why I prefer to
>have discussion in public wherever possible.) I will try to do so.
>
>In the meantime, the alternative is to provide a more element-based system
>for providing alternatives - see checkpoint 1.2
>
>   Define flexible associations, where a given kind of relationship can link
>   to or from objects of varying types without constraint
>
>Which means that relying on attributes to allow for two or three alternatives
>is not generally sufficient for meeting the checkpoint. However, Xlink does
>allow for "extended" type links, which can have multiple hrefs and arcs.
>
>http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/#linking-elements
>
>Perhaps if you outline a scenario it would be helpful to use it as a case
>study and see what we learn.

We don't need an existence proof from Jim to know there is a problem.
The HTML WG has taken the position that they have considered XLink and
found it wanting.

For the purposes of the current XAG draft, where it says

"2.3 Use the standard XML linking and pointing mechanisms (XLink and
XPointer).

it might as well say "Use standard W3C methods for associating information
in the current document with information elsewhere, and semantics bound
to the current markup vocabulary with related semantics used more widely
or more narrowly."

Can someone construct a shapshot of where the TAG is on the XLink:HLink
issue?  It is clear that the Web Community is not as much of one mind on an
appropriate-use profile for binding methods as we appear to assume by the
current XAG language.

Jim, if you would be willing to propose more inclusive language to replace 
the specific prescription of XLink and XPointer, please offer a specific 
text edit
against the latest Editor's draft, to wit:

http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/XML/xag-20020617

..and we might get into a TR page update soon.

Al

>Cheers
>
>Chaals
>
>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Jim Ley wrote:
>
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >2.3 in XAG says:
> >"2.3 Use the standard XML linking and pointing mechanisms (XLink and
> >XPointer).
> >Xlink and XPointer have been reviewed for accessibility and their
> >linking/pointing semantics may be recognized with certainty. "
> >
> >Can someone point me to this review, as I find it very constraining.  To
> >easy attach media equivalents to an element by uri, I'd want to attach
> >multiple xlink's to that element (like in html's img where we have src
> >and longdesc) the alternative is unwieldy, and is unlikely to promote
> >accessibility.
> >
> >Jim.
> >
>
>--
>Charles McCathieNevile  http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  tel: +61 409 134 136
>SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe ------------ WAI http://www.w3.org/WAI
>  21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia  fax(fr): +33 4 92 38 
> 78 22
>  W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 13:34:26 UTC