[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
9/27/2002 10:10:40 AM, "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com> wrote:
>2.) The HLink way
>
><html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; hlink:definition=http://www.example.org/whatever...
>Advantages: Modular, easy for Joe Blow to use without understanding how it works
>Disadvantages: Security issues,
What are the security issues that HLink raises but XLink (or some other "colonified" syntax)
doesn't?
> information necessary to process document no longer self contained
Hmm, I'm not sure what this means. Still I can see some distinct advantages for Namespaces 1.0 in
EXTREMELY loosely coupled environments such as the RSS weblog syndication world (makes the TAG list
fireworks seem sedate!) where there are no real authorities and all sorts of quasi-standards, but
few take the boring details of the quasi-standards all that seriously. Being able to distinguish
"<p> for paragraph" from "<p> for pontification" [in my private vocabulary :-) ] in a "self
contained" manner lets people downstream handle what they understand and quietly ignore what they
don't. I don't know how that would work in a non-colonified name-remapping technology (which is why
I'd like to see this dicussion happen!).
> XHTML which is intended for use by non-technical people in a simple and straightforward manner
> without placing undue cognitive load.
That's the whole point, at least assuming for the sake of argument that Pemberton, Dubinko et al.
are right and Harold is wrong about XLink's extreme verbosity and potential for confusion in the
XHTML context. (Micah's "Offering" on xml.com is an absolute must-read!). "Undue cognitive load"
means that only experts and those assisted by tools can produce useful documents. Those of us who
get paid to write, debug, test, or explain the tools sometimes forget that the NECESSITY for tools
is not a universally appreciated blessing.
|
