[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Arjun
Arjun said:
In favor of silly-prefix:href?
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Didier replies:
It could be perceived that way or it could open new doors like having
one to one and one to many links. So instead of simply reshuffling the
existing cards we may take the occasion to add new functionalities like
one to many links.
And about the prefix, you know, the problem with architectural forms is
that you have basically two choices:
a) state the inheritance mechanism is a separate document. Hoops, I just
committed a "taboo", it was existing in SGML.
b) in the absence of an external document, you specify the inheritance
mechanism in the document itself.
Maybe, instead of using the namespace stuff, the xlink WG could have
used a "types" attribute to indicate inheritance. if the "types"
attribute could behaves as idrefs. (ex: types ="xlink gizmo" ).
Otherwise, you have to use attributes like xlink:type="...",
gizmo:type="...", etc... to prevent name collision (something the
"types" attribute cannot do).
I personally would have preferred the "types" attribute kind of thing
but the namespace stuff has been used instead. In any case, nice or
ugly, one to many links are a useful thing and I do not know why the WG
wants absolutely to reshuffle existing card instead of taking the
occasion to add new useful features. Even if these new features are more
semantics than rendering features. This is still a mystery for me and a
kind of living proof of Mintzberg thesis :-)
(1) http://www.henrymintzberg.com/index.html
Cheers
Didier PH Martin
|
