[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Erik Wilde wrote:
>
> ...
>
> so what about defining an xlink data model in terms of infoset
> extensions, referencing it in xhtml and defining an xhtml-happy syntax
> for it, and then going ahead and defining a css3 module for link
> formatting?
So what you're saying is that XHTML and XLink will be hard-coded to
integrate with each other at the prose specification level (rather than
through any syntax) and other vocabularies will have to integrate with
XLink through the intrusive XLink-namespaced attributes? I don't see
that as progress.
> ...
> css3 would require some work, because the selectors would need to be
> extended to cover infoset extensions, and a new module for properly
> handling link formatting would be required. however, i think it would be
> worth it, since this could be used for *any* vocabulary being built on
> the xlink data model.
When a browser sees a new vocabulary how will it know how to map from
the syntax into the XLink data model?
--
"When I walk on the floor for the final execution, I'll wear a denim
suit. I'll walk in there like Willie Nelson, John Wayne, Will Smith
-- Men in Black -- James Brown. Maybe do a Michael Jackson moonwalk."
Congressman James Traficant.
|
