- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 12:53:15 -0400
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- cc: www-tag@w3.org
Elliotte Rusty Harold claims: > >The second issue is the only-one-URI-per-element rule. While I can > >understand to some extent the arguments in favor of that from an > >abstract point of view, in practice it seems bizarrely limited if not > >simply broken. > > There is no one-URI per element rule in XLink. there is a one-URI per > tag rule. That'sa very different thing. I'm afraid it's not very different. Extended links require multiple elements to express <img src="bogus.jpg" longdesc="bogus.txt" />. They may be child elements, but there's more than just a few extra tags involved. > So has XHTML. As long as XHTML 2.0 intends to be backwards > incompatible with classic HTML in ways completely unrelated to > linking, this argument just doesn't hold water. If you really want to throw classic HTML completely out the window, I suppose it doesn't matter. The XHTML WG keeps talking about evolution, not reinvention, however. ------------- Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA http://simonstl.com may be my URI http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 12:53:17 UTC