W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: XLink 1.1: Xlink vs "legacy" linking

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:05:54 +0200
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <42ffa522.55364703@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Norman Walsh wrote:
>/ Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> was heard to say:
>| Describing a new format's integration into existing infrastructure is
>| about the most basic and obvious requirement for W3C Technical Reports.
>| I want to make a user agent that is both a conforming XHTML user agent
>| and a conforming XLink application. That's either a stupid idea in which
>| case this needs to be pointed out in XLink or it's reasonable in which
>| case conformance to the specifications must not be mutually exclusive.
>I see your point, but I agree with Daniel. The XLink Recommendation
>can describe how an XLink processor must behave if processing an XLink

Yes, that's exactly what I am asking for, how must XLink implementations
behave for a construct like <xlink:a href="x" xlink:href="y" ...>. The
current draft does not say this is implementation-defined or subject to
other specifications or that this is a link to both resources or that
the xlink:href attribute takes precedence or whatever. 

>The XLink specification cannot proscribe HTML behavior on an
>XHTML "a" element and reasonably expect to get public support.

I don't see how it does not do that at the moment.
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2005 21:06:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:08:16 UTC