Re: TAG Comments on XHTML 2.0 and HLink

> Thanks for the pointer. As far as I can see the response to www-forms is
> identical to the www-tag post, except for the title. If I have missed some
> subtle difference in wording feel free to correct me.

That is correct.

> I believe others have pointed out to you that assuming xlink:show="embed"
is
> likely inappropriate. Certainly in SVG 1.0 the approach was that
> xlink:show="other" on the SVG <svg:script/> element.

That has already been pointed out, and I replied that it was the linking
group themselves who had told me that 'embed' also applied to script, and
provided a reference.

But in fact embed is a complete red herring, because if the linking group
have changed their mind, and 'embed' is not suitable, then change it to
'other' in the example, and add a new attribute html:show="embed" or
"script" or anything you want, and the argument is still *exactly the same*
(only now even more wordy).

> Do you accept that embed is inappropriate?

It's not to the point, it doesn't matter either way.

> It would be interesting to see a re-write of your case taking that into
> account.

See above.

As Arjun Ray has commented on xml-dev:
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200209/msg00391.html

"So some specifics are not up to snuff, but
not the message, which is pretty clear.   Yet revealingly enough the folks
on www-tag chose to ignore the message on the grounds that the examples
weren't "compelling", as if imagination couldn't figure how to make them
compelling,  or that the correct interpretation of 'embed' could suffice
to rescue XLink!  Okay, it's www-tag's job/nature to be conservative,
which usually winds up in defences of what's already there, but... Sheesh."

Steven Pemberton

Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 17:42:25 UTC