RE: [xml-dev] XLink 2.0 Requirements

[Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com>]

Hi Elliotte,

Thanks for posting these.

<xhtml:form xlink:type="simple" method="post"
xlink:href="http://submit.example.com"; 
xlink:arcrole="http://www.example.com/post";>

I can's see how this is an improvement. In fact, it's probably worse than
the XLink-less markup, since a generic XLink processor (which wouldn't know
anything about this specific arcrole or POSTs) would see this as
encouragement to spider the submit URL.

<xhtml:object xlink:type="extended">
   <href xlink:type="locator" xlink:href="http://link.example.com"/>
   <longdesc xlink:type="locator" xlink:href="http://desc.example.com"/>
</xhtml:object>

Are you sure this works as intended? Wouldn't a resource-type element be
needed at a minimum, to stand in for the local resource?

And what would be the semantic difference between just having two separate
simple links?
<xhtml:object>
   <href xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://link.example.com";
      xlink:actuate="onPrimaryRequest"/>
   <longdesc xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="http://desc.example.com";
      xlink:actuate="onSecondaryRequest" xlink:show="new"/>
</xhtml:object>

But the point I wanted to drive home is the 'actuate' values. The important
piece that XLink could add is something to distinguish between the two ways
to actuate the two different links. Same issue--the spec hard codes a single
value "onRequest", and later cases come up where a 2nd value is needed.

Thanks,

.micah