[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Tim Bray writes:
> Perhaps, but content-negotiation is kind of a blunt instrument and
> isn't going to help you with for example different picture
> resolutions or expert-vs-introductory level material or a lot of
> other things.
Sure, but once you've insisted that there can only be one link per
element, you're going to have to deal with a lot of blunt instruments.
I don't think the child element approach of complex links or the pretty
much undefined prospect of child element simple links solves that in a
way that makes anyone but XLink partisans (how many of those are there?)
happy. I could certainly live with:
<img>
<src xlink:href="whatever.gif" />
<longdesc xlink:href="item.txt" />
<alt>This is alt text</alt>
</img>
I'm not sure I feel confident, however, that it's the one and only
correct answer. There's a layer in there which feels like it's
somewhere between simple and complex links, and I don't think XLink has
really described how the relationship between the img element and the
child element simple links in src and longdesc might work.
It's a tough problem, not one we can get around with simple name
remapping, and I suspect we'll have to think hard about this for a
while.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
