[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> If we cannot get to a **really simple** syntax to express these
> notions, one
> that will be clear to most non-specialists and non-nerd html authors, we
> better forget it right now. And it should have few options and no
> interactions between parts. I know that this does not sound like
> a general
> replacement for xlink, but I think it is what is needed for xhtml.
>
> Does anyone else think like this, or is it just me?
+1 agree with Tom
this Xlink/Hlink 'is more complex' whine ( yes, it irratates when people
won't even spend a few minutes to learn a new technology or concept, Xlink
isnt difficult just slightly different, when they use it for possibly
years ) is the 'main' reason why people have resisted adopting existing
XLink...if the 80% don't see something similar to <a href=""></a> then
you've lost em, and we have lost them; completely as the non-adoption of
XLink by the 80% is testimony too.
yes I agree that we can have the more interesting linking behaviors, but if
thats at the cost of losing the simplicity of what we had before, with added
verbosity of more typing due to more then one attribute and namespaced
element....., and showing either Xlink or HLink way of doing linking to a
'designer' hasen't and won't work in the near to medium term future.
I like the idea of HLink being an XHTML module ( which could promote
competing linking modules ), and to a certain degree if I have the
requirement of a sophisticated linking application, I would implement and
use it...but I wouldnt enforce its use by users within my system.....ah heck
to a certain degree I'm still only one XSLT transform away in any event.
What XHTML 2.0 specifies is good for the users of my software, and I think
we need to promote its usage as default over everything.
just my 2 pence.
cheers, jim fuller
|
