[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> robin.berjon@expway.fr (Robin Berjon) writes:
>>The ability to understand links without knowledge of the
>>vocabulary seems to me to be of high value.
>
> If it was, people might do it.
It's way too early to tell, compound documents are still rare. Besides,
people haven't exactly been given a chance.
>>The ability to stuff embedding and hyperlinking on the same element
>>appears to me to be of fairly little value.
>
> To you, perhaps. To me, it seems like basic functionality.
Would you mind to expose in which ways stuffing those two
functionalities onto the a single element is basic? To me inclusion is
basic, but as I said the ability to include no more than one document at
any given point is a silly limitation (and enough to render the feature
useless to me).
> I think there are multiple communities of hypertext practice out there,
> and XLink, so far as I can tell, has proven optimal (heck, even
> exciting) for none.
That's another debate altogether -- XLink may not be sexy, but at least
it's there. To misquote: "generic linking is like sex, even when it's
bad it's still pretty good".
--
Robin Berjon
|
