Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

/ Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net> was heard to say:
|> Simpler than my earlier example that *already works in my browser*?
|>   <phrase xlink:href="http://www.example.com/"
|> xlink:type="simple">...</phrase>
|
| First, yes we can get much simpler than this:
|
| <phrase exegesis="">...</phrase>
|
| Note how my version moves the whole thing into the domain of the
| end-user and involves no foreign namespaces and "extra" attributes.

Yes, that's true. But now it doesn't square with my experience with
actual authors. No one has never asked me to add "exegesis" to phrase
so that they can connect the phrase to its explanation.

The linking question I am most frequently asked is, how can I make
this phrase a link to this other element or this URI?

If the phrase occurs in a context where "link" is available, I tell
them to use

  <link href="uri"><phrase>...</phrase></link>

If not, I tell them to use

  <phrase><link href="uri">...</link></phrase>

If it happens that "phrase" (whatever the actual element is, I get
this for phrase and command and function and methodname and just about
every other inline element you can think of) is being used in a
context where link isn't allowed and doesn't allow link as one of its
children, the user is simply out of luck.

I have every reason to believe that if I told the author, just add
'xlink:href' to the element, they'd be very content.

I am equally confident that if I could support some common and more
complex linking semantics with a little markup using a few nested
elements and some other xlink: attributes, they'd be equally content.

It might also be the case that if I added a 'uri' attribute to every
element, and told them to put an "xml:linking" attribute on the root
element of their document with a particular URI value and then to use
'uri' on the phrase element, they'd be equally content. I dunno.
Doesn't actually seem easier to me.

| Second, when I was talking about simplicity above I was talking about
| simplicity of the overall specification. XLink is 34 pages when it
| should be less than 10 if it is going to be baked into every XML tool
| on the planet (as a truly fundamental linking language should!).

You think you can describe the syntax and semantics of the out-of-band
any-linking-semantics-you-want scenario you are suggesting in less
than 10 pages? I would be very impressed.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

- -- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM    | Not everyone can live upstream.
XML Standards Architect |
Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQE9ndO/OyltUcwYWjsRAuhmAJ9FKRwxdfw8othxQc0HHr1RFUjdHgCfXwlJ
XzKnOpynJVV3tUENqAer7wY=
=mBAY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 13:46:14 UTC