RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 12:21 PM
> To: WWW-Tag
> Subject: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry)
> 

[preface: I have no particular preference in the XLink / HLink / something
else debate, I'm just trying to understand ... well, I have a preference for
taking what we've learned and putting a very small but powerful subset into
the core of XML 2.x, but no clue on what that would look like]
 
> <main-theses>
> 1. If you want to extend XHTML to do any of the three things 
> that XLink  claims to be designed to do, then XLink is a good way to do
it.

I'm curious as to why you believe that so strongly.  Because it is a
Recommendation? So is XHTML, RDF, etc.  

Because we need one and only one linking technology?  What about the CSS
"vs" XLST, XSL-FO, SVG, etc. situation?  To a certain extent those overlap. 

> 
> 2. This would be a good direction to extend XHTML in.

Why is it more important for XHTML to migrate in the direction of generic
XML rather than for generic XML to incorporate the linking mechanism of
XHTML 1.x?

I see all the other main theses as more or less self-evident.

> 
> - If the XHTML WG wants to write down a formalism for capturing the 
> syntax and semantics of their existing markup, I don't see why anyone 
> should try to stop them.  I suggest they should investigate existing 
> mechanisms like RDF, ISO Architectural Forms, and various existing 
> schema languages, but nobody can possibly be against more 
> precision and  formalism in specifications.

I must admit this aspect of HLink baffles me.  If it's a formalism for
defining what XHTML links really do so that implementations have a formal
basis for testing and interop, use RDF, ISO AF, or whatever.  If it's an
external mechanism for defining an AF-like links-via-name-remapping
mechanism, what does it have to do with XHTML?

> - Having said that, it is *my* intuition that if a major 
> browser vendor  had implemented multi-ended extended 
> XLinks 

I think I agree.  But to me the interesting question is *why* XLink has
gotten such a tepid (to hostile) reception outside the W3C itself. Why the
only browser vendor with any market share didn't implement XLink is a
question that in principle a number of people in Redmond WA could answer for
us ... I don't suppose anyone wants to take a shot at it, eh?  :-)

However this goes forward, XLink2, HLink, XML 2.x, RDF, Topic Maps, .... the
next time the W3C has to make SURE that there is both reasonable consensus
and running code among all the important stakeholders before it goes to
Recommendation, IMHO.

Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 16:02:03 UTC