- From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 23:04:30 +0200
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org, w3c-css-wg@w3.org
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 03:58:19PM -0400, Norman Walsh wrote: > / Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> was heard to say: > | Dear XML Core Working Group, > | > | http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xlink11-20050707/ is unclear about > | how it integrates with CSS, e.g., it is unclear how the attributes > | affect which elements match the CSS :link selector. Please change > | the draft such that this is well-defined. > > The WG has considered this comment and concludes that the XLink > specification is in no position to assert how CSS selectors should > operate. We will add a non-normative note to the effect that > "languages such as CSS should see XLink links as links and treat them > accordingly" and encourage the CSS WG to clarify that XLink links are > subject to styling by the :link and other psuedo-elements. > > Please let us know if you find this resolution satisfactory. I think it is part of the answer. But CSS's ':link' actually only matches hyperlinks, so we need to check which link types in XLink fall in that category. If I understand XLink correctly, the way to recognize links that are meant as hyperlinks is rather simple: all links with "actuate=onRequest" and only those. (Though it worries me that XLink nowhere explicitly says that.) If the above is indeed true, maybe your sentence can be modified to include it? E.g., Languages such as CSS should see XLink links with actuate=onRequest as hyperlinks and treat them accordingly (e.g., they match the ':link' or ':visited' pseudoclasses in CSS). Bert -- Bert Bos ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/ http://www.w3.org/people/bos W3C/ERCIM bert@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2005 21:04:45 UTC