- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 18:48:44 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- cc: <www-style@w3.org>, <bert@w3.org>
On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > > * Ian Hickson wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >>> >>> I came to the conclusion, that I don't like the @link rule syntax. >>> [...] >> >> Personally, I do not really understand why we need this to be in CSS at >> all. Stylesheets are supposed to be optional, but links are an inherent >> part of the data. What's wrong with simply relying on XLink to tell us > > ...or semantics of the used document language... agreed >> what is a link? > > Well, authors would be able to add extended hyperlinking capabilities to > documents the document language didn't consider. Thus XLink link bases. > Take the longdesc attribute as example, HTML 4 defines it to carry an > URI but not if and how users may access the resource behind it, nor > how it should be presented to the user. I think another design goal is > to allow user agents, that don't know the used document language > and/or don't know XLink are able to present the document anyway in a > appropriate manner. There are two issues here. Link identification, and link style and behaviour. I believe the first is out of the scope of CSS, and the second is very much _in_ the scope of CSS. -- Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL Invited Expert, CSS Working Group /. `- ' ( `--' The views expressed in this message are strictly `- , ) - > ) \ personal and not those of Netscape or Mozilla. ________ (.' \) (.' -' ______
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 21:48:03 UTC