OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

 


 

   RE: [xml-dev] linking, 80/20

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Arjun Ray wrote:

> > "href" on any element is a straight-up loser. 

> I agree.  
> 
> The basic problem with href and src is that they are not
> *links* at all. They are locators, with a conflated
> actuation semantic ('href' implying "replace", 'src'
> implying "embed".)  

Are you saying that "elements besides <a> can have (replace) links" is a
bad idea, i.e. <quote href="...">?  Or that it's a bad idea for certain
elements (head, title, body)?  Or that the proposed implementation does
not indicate a means of differentiating between "replace" and "embed".

Note, AFAICT there is no 'src' attribute any more in XHTML 2; 'img' is
now 'object', whose semantic apparently is always "embed" (with the
'data' attribute):

    http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-object.html

> We may also note that bog-standard HTML *already* has one
> form of multiway linkage: the <MAP> element.  It so happens
> to be usable presently with only one element type, <img>,
> but it still qualifies as a reasonable basis for
> generalization, because the <MAP> element expresses the
> insight that multiway linking needs independent structured
> description.  So, if href and src are to be retained for
> their locator+actuation function, it makes sense to have a
> container element to aggregate them, and to attach the
> aggregate to other elements by normal intra-document
> reference mechanisms.

If there had been a container element to aggregate <a> like map-usemap,
it would be a lot more complex -- at least for authoring -- than a
simple <a href="..."> with an (understood) semantic of "replace", don't
you think?  


/Jelks





 

News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS