- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 23:58:53 +0200
- To: "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>, <Svgdeveloper@aol.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Thanks Paul! Next time we're together at a meeting, let's go for a beer; I've been interested in talking to you for a long time. Steven PS In case you didn't know, I'm one of the designers of ABC, the language that Python was based on. See http://www.python.org/doc/essays/foreword.html, and then http://www.cwi.nl/~steven/abc/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net> To: <Svgdeveloper@aol.com>; <www-tag@w3.org> Cc: <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 11:50 PM Subject: Re: TAG Comments on XHTML 2.0 and HLink > > Svgdeveloper@aol.com wrote: > >... > > > > If there is a sound technical case to be made lucidly and succinctly for the > > HTML WG's (and XForms WG's) opposition to XLink please feel free to make it > > known. > > When an XHTML author embeds a picture, video or formula into their > otherwise prose document, they are clear in their minds that they are > shifting into a different semantic mode and dealing with a different > data type. What makes the linking situation different is that people are > not switching mental models when they want to make a link. The link is > just one attribute in the middle of a sea of HTML. It isn't a shift, it > is simply a feature of HTML. > > They shouldn't be forced to absorb any of: > > a) the XLink namespace > b) the XLink data model > c) the XLink attribute names and element types > > I believe it to be a fundamentally bad user interface decision to force > XHTML developers to think about XLink at all. > > Furthermore, the techniques that would allow XHTML to be mapped to XLink > semantics through annotation are well-known. Of course it always takes > less engineering effort to make the binding between two components > simple and let the user deal with the disconnect. As an analogy, we > could force people to click on buttons to bring up SVG pictures in a > totally different browser. But seamless is better and is achievable. > > Paul Prescod > >
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 17:59:06 UTC