[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
tbray@textuality.com (Tim Bray) writes:
>This is a plausible argument, but I don't buy it - I think that
>hyperlinks are one of the defining characteristics of the Web and at
>the end of the day are content not presentation. The #1 reason XLink
>has not taken off is that Microsoft has not seen fit to implement it
>in IE.
Perhaps for once we should all be grateful to Microsoft for not
implementing the 1.0 version of a W3C spec, thereby giving us time to
reconsider the supposed merits of the XLink spec and its present
approach. (I'd be happier if they'd done that with W3C XML Schema as
well, but this isn't so bad.)
SkunkLink's approach makes far more sense to me for in-line linking than
does XLink's approach, and seems likely to be far more to attractive to
browser developers deciding whether or not to invest the time needed to
incorporate such mechanisms in their browsers.
I'd love to have out-of-line linking someday, but don't consider XLink's
approach to that particularly sensible either. (Yes, I'm working on
more positive proposals. The XLink WG is dead. Long live - or get
started - XML hypertext linking!)
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
