[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>
>Link harvesters shouldn't need a whole lot of training to figure out
>that "href==(xlink:href xlink:type='simple') in XHTML." This is a
>pretty easy transformation. In fact, an "XHTML to explicit XLink" XSLT
>stylesheet should be pretty trivial, especially if all you want is to
>build tools which harvest the links.
One of our issues, which has been previously asserted here, is that we want
to be as processable by a "pure-play" XML browser as any other XML
vocabulary (yes, we'll be provided a default style sheet people can adopt,
etc).
Anything that then requires arcane knowledge is not going to be warmly
embraced as an acceptable solution.
We _are_ XML -- and not horribly complicated XML at that -- the basic
mechanisms of XML should be able to support XHTML if they are properly
written or in the case of a current Rec that has proven less than useful to
communities that include many beyond our own, rewritten.
Ann
>(For our next question, I'd like to take bets on how many times
>namespaces will prove a hassle for HTML's development... So far we've
>had the three-namespaces battle and now this one, so two by my count.)
Funny thing about the three-namespaces battle is that another WG (SVG?)
went off and did what we proposed back then, and either a) nobody noticed,
or b) nobody complained.
I suppose being the 800-pound Gorrila of markup makes people nervous when
we try just about anything.
Ann
|
