- From: Oskar Welzl <lists@welzl.info>
- Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:12:16 +0100
- To: Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
- Cc: Devin Bayer <devin@freeshell.org>, Jeremy Rand <jeremy@asofok.org>, www-html@w3.org
There are various opinions on this topic; me, myself and I all would happily add xlink:type="simple" if, in return, we'd get xlink:type="extended" and external linkbases. If, in return, we'd use standards in XHTML, rather than home-brew proprietary solutions; the same standards that are used in Open Document, SVG, XTM, XBRL... Maybe it's more verbose than people are used to, maybe extended links and external linkbases are more difficult to implement - but: hey, they are hoping for UAs to deal with the Metainformation Attributes Module as well, aren't they? But, as I said earlier: This topic is probably dead as can be, google for "xlink xhtml" and you'll find everything has been said and done. (I like these hopeless cases, though; anybody for a new "@hreflang in XHTML2"-thread? I still believe Anne got it all wrong in http://annevankesteren.nl/2004/06/hreflang-and-type ;-)...) Oskar Am Mittwoch, den 07.12.2005, 18:10 -0500 schrieb Kelly Miller: > XLink as it is right now would be very bad for XHTML. I seriously doubt > page authors will want to have to declare a simple link EVERY SINGLE > TIME they want to have a link. > > Oskar Welzl wrote: > > >Shall we try one more "XLink in XHTML 2.0"? > >Count my vote. - But I'm afraid I'm too late. Again. :-( > > > >
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2005 09:12:16 UTC