- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:49:24 +0200 (EET)
- To: www-html@w3.org
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > XHTML 2.0 introduced a way so any element could be a > hyperlink and any element could embed some document/image. XHTML 2.0 didn't do anything, yet. There is no XHTML 2.0. There is just a sketchy draft for an XHTML 2.0 specification, saying that "it is inappropriate to cite this document as other than 'work in progress.'" It's the seventh public draft, and there seems to be little progress. The idea you mention is probably one of the worst ideas: in the theoretical approach of making linking ubiquous, it breaks the link concept. It is _good_ to restrict link syntax so that there is a short link text (inline textual content). Generalizations break the idea instead of making things more flexible. What will a list of links look like if a "link" can be any element, including the root element? Similar considerations apply to embedding. > From a "semantic" > point of view |<a href="">| is not really any different from |<span href="">| > (same for html:object) so I don't see the point in keeping html:a and > html:object. Well, the difference between <a href ...> and <span href ...> would be that the former is known to exist for the purpose of linking, while the latter could be anything, being a link just as an aside perhaps. The logical and practical approach - assuming that continuity with existing HTML usage is to be broken - would be to define a link as <link ref="...">...</link>, getting rid of the absurdly cryptic names "a" and "href". Similarly, <image source="..."><caption>...</caption>...</image> -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Monday, 12 December 2005 10:49:38 UTC