Re: TAG Comments on XHTML 2.0 and HLink

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.


PS In case you didn't know, I'm one of the designers of ABC, the language
that Python was based on.

See, and then

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Prescod" <>
To: <>; <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: TAG Comments on XHTML 2.0 and HLink

> wrote:
> >...
> >
> > If there is a sound technical case to be made lucidly and succinctly for
> > HTML WG's (and XForms WG's) opposition to XLink please feel free to make
> > 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