- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 21:36:45 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <exxieh@bath.ac.uk>
- CC: Daniel Glazman <Daniel.Glazman@der.edf.fr>, www-style@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote:
> And Daniel did answer:
> >Right. Does it mean you can define let's say the SPROTCH element in a XML
> document
> >with no attribute list and say _through CSS 2_ it should act as a hyperlink
No, but then, you would rarely want to. Lets use the right specs for the
right jobs.
To indicate that something is a link, use the XLINK specification. To
indicate the styling of a link, use a stylesheet language.
> That's the idea (but I would say CSS3). Although SPROTCH would then be an
> element of limited use, to be fair! using
>
> <!ATTLIST SPROTCH uri >
>
> and
>
> SPROTCH { personality: hyperlink;
> href: attr(uri); }
>
> would be much more useful (pardon the glaring errors in my pseudo XML DTD
> thing here, I've only skimmed the XML spec).
Right. I suggest skimming section 3 of the XLink spec, instead [1] and
then noticing that any conforming XML parser immediately know that
SPROTCH is *not* a link because it does not contain the xml:link
attribute.
Wheras the WIBBLE element is, quite clearly, a link:
<!ATTLIST WIBBLE xml:link CDATA #FIXED "simple">
and thus
:visited { color: red }
will turn all visited WIBBLE elements red. Simple, really.
>
> >Hmmm. Is it really the purpose of a **Style** Sheet ?
>
> I would say, yes.
No. Its semantics. Deciding what the link looks like, or sounds like, is
the purpose of a stylesheet.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-xlink.html#3
--
Chris
Received on Friday, 24 April 1998 15:57:54 UTC