[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Jeni wrote -
>
> I absolutely agree, and that's why pushing the generic descriptions of
> the links into a schema, rather than having them declared in the
> instance, is a good idea. It means that *authors* can simply do what
> they've always been doing:
>
> <img src="my.gif" />
>
> without having to worry about the fact that for an XLink application
> to understand the img it actually has to look more like:
>
Even though I usually try to avoid defaulting or fixing values in a schema
(so that a non-validating processor will work right), I think I agree with
Jeni here. I think that xhtml will almost always be processed by
special-purpose processors, and that makes it reasonable to impose a schema
(hopefully compatible with DTDs) like this.
The most desirable way (for me) to look at this is that it would be the
**customization** of a higher abstraction that would be done at the schema
level. By means of the customization, the application syntax would be
simple.
Cheers,
Tom P
|
