Re: two failings of XLink

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 may be my URI may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid: is another possibility altogether

Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 15:01:28 UTC