Re: two failings of XLink

On Friday, September 27, 2002, at 12:20 PM, Micah Dubinko wrote:

>  As I mentioned earlier [1], this doesn't hold up in XLink 1.0 terms, 
> though.
> This looks like a link with four remote endpoints, 12 (defaulted) 
> arcs, and
> no relationship to the <img> element.

I'm not convinced; but oops, I notice several typo/thinkos in my 
proposal.  Better:

<img xlink:type="extended">
   <src xlink:type="locator" xlink:href="someURI"/>
   <longdesc xlink:type="locator" lang="EN" xlink:href="desc-EN.html"/>
   <longdesc xlink:type="locator" lang="JP" xlink:href="desc-JP.html"/>
   <longdesc xlink:type="locator" xlink:title="Audio" lang="EN" 

So, as to the arcs, XLink doesn't require any of that stuff, and the 
embedding language can add as much semantics as it wants.  The 
relationship to the img is pretty obvious isn't it?  Yes, I suppose 
that adding the arcs could make it more explicit, but does anyone 
really care what order (in this case) you go from point to point?  I 
imagine that an XHTML2 processor, on mouse-over, would float up a menu 
allowing you to choose longdesc resources.

Having said that...

> I can imagine a fairly painless change to XLink to fix this:
> Strawman: xlink:type="local-extended"

... not bad. -Tim

Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 15:41:55 UTC