- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 09:55:35 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- cc: WAI Cross-group list <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Well, it would break the current approach of everything in attributes, but extended Xlinks should be readily useable by having the other links as children. As you point out in your other message [1], this changes the authoring model slightly from SVG/HTML. On the other hand, your example looks a lot like a SMIL switch statement or an object element: Jim's example: <image xlink:href="shepherds.jpg"> <alternative xlink:href="shepherds.html" type="text/html"> <alternative xlink:href="shepherds.rdf" type="application/rdf+xml"> <alternative xlink:href="shepherds.svg" type="image/svg+xml"> </image> Consider the following: <mediaExample xlink:href="example"> <alt xlink:role="http://example.au/equivalenceTypes/image" xlink:href="example.img" /> <alt xlink:role="http://example.au/equivalenceTypes/hyperText" xlink:href="example.txt" /> <alt xlink:role="http://example.au/equivalenceTypes/movie" xlink:href="example.mov" /> A short clip of Jim beating Charles in an animating debate </mediaExample> If "example" is a content-negotiated resource that can in fact provide all the same types, then is <mediaExample xlink:href="example"/> an equivalent? Should there be at least the short-text content as with the HTML/SMIL alt attribute, or hypertext content, as with the HTML object element? (But please not so many attributes - a plea also made in the HTML group!) I think it depends on the application. If you are dynamically building content then you can have a whole lot of small blocks. How about the following: <div> <ill xlink:role="http://example.au/equivalenceTypes/image" xlink:href="figure1" /> <alt xlink:role="http://example.au/equivalenceTypes/movie" xlink:href="movie" /> <p> <ill> <alt xlink:role="http://example.au/equivalenceTypes/image" xlink:href="figure2" /> <alt xlink:role="http://example.au/equivalenceTypes/movie" xlink:href="movie" /> </ill> Charles and Jim had a lively discussion about the merits of animation and scripting. Charles suggested that animation was virtually free, whereas Jim said that with a good script it was easier to understand what was happening and going to happen.</p> <p>Jim, of course, demonstrated his argument with very cogent examples, and so carried the day.</p> </div> (where ill is an optional element to illustrate the content of its parent, and alt is an alternative version to replace content in its parent - a la elements in a SMIL or SVG switch) I have used the movie both as an illustration (with a picture as an alternate) and as an alternate for the same block. On the one hand this is a kind of complicated example. On the other hand it allows an author to provide various kinds of alternatives (meets 1.2), and at the same time makes it possible to annotate various chunks (the div, a p element, the move). Not quite all of this can be done with attributes - if you make an alt element into an attribute then it can't be XML that includes further alt elements except by reference to a URI. Is that a good thing or a bad one? [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2002Sep/0011 Some of this is just thinking out loud... Cheers Chaals On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Jim Ley wrote: > >"Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org> > >> I don't see that your conclusion follows from your premise. It is clear >that >> the HTML group doesn't want to use Xlink, and equally clear that the >SVG >> group is happy to use it. SMIL 2 takes an intermediate position. > >Dean Jackson in >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2002Aug/0060.html >Made a suggestion would break XLink in SVG. > >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 Tuesday, 3 September 2002 09:55:40 UTC