- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:06:52 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
> At 3:58 PM -0400 9/26/02, Simon St.Laurent wrote: > >I'm still not quite sure why you started out by saying: > >> There is no one-URI per element rule in XLink. there is a one-URI > >> per tag rule. That'sa very different thing. > > > > Consider this example: > > <object xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/xlink"> > <longdesc xlink:href="http://www.example.com"/> > <src xlink:href="http://www.example.org"/> > <someotherlink xlink:href="http://www.example.net"/> > Look Mom! We can put alternate text here! > We can even <strong>markup</strong> the alternate text. > Hell, we can even provide a classic HTML > <img src="http://www.example.org"/> for browsers that don't support > XHTML2. I learned this trick from Java. > </object> > > This img element has *3* links. The img element is not just about > it's start tag. It includes all its content. Elliotte, I think I have to give up. So far as I can tell, you're using definitions of tags and elements that don't correspond to my understandings of their usage. The img element is an element, whether it has an empty tag or a start tag and and an end tag. If it contains child elements, or is wrapped in other elements, I count that as a multiple-element solution, not just a multi-tag solution. "One-URI per tag" is completely meaningless, so far as I can tell. "One-URI per element" makes far more sense. ------------- Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA http://simonstl.com may be my URI http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 09:06:54 UTC