[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- To: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@netfolder.com>,"Eric van der Vlist" <vdv@dyomedea.com>,"Mike Champion" <mc@xegesis.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping (was Re:[xml-dev] TAG on HLink)
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:02:18 -0700
- Cc: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Thread-index: AcJmMyjALotc7UNQSCyqNoZVBxL69QAAyQrx
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping (was Re:[xml-dev] TAG on HLink)
When I say easy for Joe Blow to grasp I assume the XHTML working group will produce a specific HLink mapping file which will become the de jure standard. I wouldn't be surprised if every XHTML 2.0 user simply cut and paste something akin to
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml> "
hlink:definition="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/CanonicalHlinkMappings";
in the same manner people cut & paste HTML DOCTYPE decls without understanding how they worked. I sincerely doubt that the average user will ever need to know HLink exists or how to use it if XHTML 2.0 ships with it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Didier PH Martin [mailto:martind@netfolder.com]
Sent: Fri 9/27/2002 7:34 AM
To: Dare Obasanjo; 'Eric van der Vlist'; 'Mike Champion'
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping (was Re:[xml-dev] TAG on HLink)
Hi Dare,
Dare said:
<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, information necessary to process
document no longer self contained
Didier replies:
I am not so sure about if what you said as an advantage is really one. I
tested with a real joe Blow (i.e. somebody that knows a bit about XML
and a lot about HTML) and he got some difficulties to grasp the mapping
process. It is probably easier for someone used to object inheritance as
commonly used in object languages or to someone who learned about
architectural forms :-)
I have also some questions.
a) Would this implies that XSLT 2.0 should support such mapping in order
to be able to process documents. For instance, to match with a link
element and be aware that in fact, it should match with an object
element (which is mapped to a link element)?.
b)Would this imply that XSLT 1.0 is broken when we think of processing
XHTML 2.0 documents (with the Hlink mapping)?
c) if the mapping document is external to the document to be processed,
why then not use a DTD including architectural form declaration to
perform the mapping?
d) are slowly following a path where documents are no longer self
sufficient?
e) have reached the limits of the original axioms?
f) Are we brain damaged? :-) :-), just kidding :-)
Cheers
Didier PH Martin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
