W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2002

Re: TAG Comments on XHTML 2.0 and HLink

From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 22:51:04 -0400
Message-Id: <p04330105b9b977917a0f@[]>
To: "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, <www-tag@w3.org>

At 11:42 PM +0200 9/26/02, Steven Pemberton wrote:

  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).

No, the entire argument falls apart. You clam that because of XLink, 
you can;t do:

<script ...>
     <security ...>

I claim you can do exactly that, and that both script and security 
can be simple  XLinks, as can any children or descendants of these 
elements. Your argument, as I understood it, was based on the idea 
that embedded content eliminated the children and the descendants. No 
xlink:show="embed". Problem vanishes.

| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
|          XML in a  Nutshell, 2nd Edition (O'Reilly, 2002)          |
|              http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian2/              |
|  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0596002920/cafeaulaitA/  |
|  Read Cafe au Lait for Java News:  http://www.cafeaulait.org/      |
|  Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.cafeconleche.org/    |
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 22:53:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:54 UTC