- From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 22:51:04 -0400
- 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 ...>
...
</script>
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