[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 9:41 AM -0400 8/16/02, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>I'm not sure what your conclusion is. Are you saying that XHTML must
>use XLink, and can then extend its meaning? Or are you saying that
>XHTML can define the meaning of links within its domain independently?
>
Actually, I'm in between those two points. I am saying that *IF*
XHTML chooses to use XLink, then it can extend its meaning by
defining additional link behavior and semantics based on elements and
attributes that are part of XHTML, and that are not part of XLink
itself. This possibility is recognized and endorsed by the XLink spec.
>I think at least that it's clear that XLink by itself isn't enough, but
>getting beyond that is more difficult.
>
I don't think getting beyond it is all that hard, provided this is
done in a particular domain. The HTML folks have a very good idea of
what links they need with what purposes. XLink can provide the syntax
and very basic linking semantics on top of which this can be built.
It only becomes hard if you insist that XLink must define all
possible linking semantics and behavior for all applications that use
it. This is a mini version of the common markup fallacy that one
vocabulary suits all uses.
--
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| XML in a Nutshell, 2nd Edition (O'Reilly, 2002) |
| http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian2/ |
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0596002920/cafeaulaitA/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ |
| Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.cafeconleche.org/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|
