- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 15:01:27 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Elliotte Rusty Harold writes: > >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. > > But you don't have to use extended XLinks if you don't want to. > Multiple simple XLinks solve HTML's needs just fine. Multiple simple XLinks require multiple elements, which was my original point. You claimed it was just "extra tags", but tags have a tendency to define elements. > >> 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. > > But they are evolving a new species that can't interbred with the old > one. Mutations can be helpful, but as mutating past the point of > recognition, there's not much if any benefit to sticking with older > solutions when better ones are available. I don't think there's any sign whatsoever in the current draft that XHTML is mutating past the point of recognition. Adding XLink to it would certainly accelerate that process, 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 15:01:28 UTC