[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> [Elliotte Rusty Harold]
> >
> > The only objection I've seen so far to XLink that is not based on
> > fundamental misunderstandings of XLink is the desire to put multiple
> > link attributes on a single element instead of using extended links.
> > I'm sympathetic to this position. But even here, there might be a
> > middle ground. An element such as object can contain multiple simple
> > link elements rather than all the extended link locator, arc, label
> > fru-fru. For example,
> >
> > <object width="100" height="100" other_non_linking_attributes="...">
> > <source xlink:href="http://www.example.com/MyImage.jpg"/>
> > <longdesc xlink:href="http://www.example.com/description.html"/>
> > <map xlink:href="http://www.example.com/map.txt"/>
> > <alt>
> > In this scheme we can put a <strong>lot</strong> of markup here.
> > </alt>
> > </object>
> >
> > I think this is pretty straight-forward, pretty easy to type, and in
> > many ways much cleaner than the current approach.
>
> RDDL would almost be an example of this approach. And the xlink namespace
> could be a default namespace, so the prefix would not have to be typed. It
> would also open up the possibility that these linking elements could contain
> optional annotation elements, which could be useful.
Tut. tut. tut. Attributes do not get the default namespace. There is no
escaping the xlink prefix, or some prefix at least, under XMLNS 1.0.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Apache 2.0 API - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-apache/
Basic XML and RDF techniques for knowledge management, Part 7 - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think12.html
Keeping pace with James Clark - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-jclark.html
|
![http://www.example.com/MyImage.jpg"/](http://www.example.com/MyImage.jpg"/){kind=link}