- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:33:13 +0100
- To: www-tag@w3.org, Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com>
Hi Micah, > There's really two major kinds of hypertext linking: the equivalent > of html <a>, and the equivalent of html <img> (or <object>). Could > this be the 80/20 point? > > What if there were two new kinds of simple links, both identified by a > single attribute: > > xml:href for <a>-style links > xml:src for <img>-style links Sweet :) > The xml prefix is chosen because I think links have special > importance to the Web > > The presence of either of these single attributes indicates a link > between the local element and the remote resource indicated. It does > _not_ provide any hard guidance on what to do with the link (thus no > 'show' & 'embed' attributes). User agents are free to (as they do > now) interpret and process the link in whatever way makes sense. I take it, then, that the difference that you were referring to between <a> (xml:href) and <img> (xml:src) was one of actuation -- when the link is traversed -- rather than what you do with whatever you find at the other end? (Whether you replace or embed is the other obvious difference between the two...) > This also, I believe, addresses the HTML Working Group's objection > to having the limit of a single attribute per type. While it's true > that there can still be at most a single xml:href attribute, there > is also only a single way to do the default activation of a link. > Similarly for xml:src, there is only a single source of content for > the link. So in XLink terms, these would cover actuate="onRequest" and actuate="onLoad" but not actuate="none" or actuate="other", which I think is reasonable. HLink introduced actuate="onRequestSecondary", but I guess that's beyond the 80% point? Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Monday, 30 September 2002 16:40:55 UTC