- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:51:32 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Cc: www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
- Message-id: <87fyr7al2z.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl> was heard to say: | I support this comment: | <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2005JulSep/0016> | | I suggest that the XLink working groups adds a section about markup language | integration conflicts and describes that in user agents that implement both | XLink and the language that causes the conflict XLink should be ignored. So: | | <xhtml1:div xlink:href="foo" href="bar">... | | ... causes no conflict as the DIV element in the XHTML 1 namespace has no | attribute HREF, but: | | <xhtml1:img src="foo" xlink:href="bar" xlink:show="embed"/> | | ... does cause a conflict and therefore XLink must be ignored in this case. If I understand correctly, you would like to see another criteria added to 3.3 Application Conformance along these lines: 4. for each element processed, if the application understands the semantics of the element, and if that element has linking semantics independent of XLink, then any XLink markup on that element MUST be ignored. Is that right? If it is, I have two concerns. First, I see no way to clearly describe "linking semantics independent of XLink" in a way that is both abstract (since we can't know what the markup might be) and concrete (so that we don't wind up with some implementations that think the Foo element in XYZ markup has linking semantics and some don't). Second, it will require XLink applications to be non-interoperable for those vocabularies that have linking semantics since it's likely that not all XLink processors will know about all vocabularies. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc. NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2005 19:51:51 UTC