[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> There is an element of chicken-and-egg to it. Still, even when I was
> presenting on XLink regularly, I never had anyone ask about this. I'm
> aware of very few XLink link-harvesters, though I think STEP UK had one
> long ago.
I've used generic XLinks to find out about dependencies between XML
documents in a variety of arbitrary vocabularies, and I've found it
useful. I'm not in love with XLink itself, but I'd rather have it than
nothing.
> I suspect we can argue about "basic", but to me this:
>
> <img src="thumbnail.jpg" href="fullpicture.jpg" />
>
> makes far more sense than:
> <a href="fullpicture.jpg"><img src="thumbnail.jpg" /></a>
>
> I don't see the need for two elements to represent that functionality.
> It seems to clutter language design and complicate document structures
> to no particular purpose. (And yes, I use that pattern constantly. See
> http://simonstl.com/dryden/archives/000095.html for an example using my
> house.)
I remain fairly unconvinced, even if images are the one case that gets
closest to making sense. However to hop just one bump up from this
ultra-simple example, if I want to link an image and a bit of text,
would you recommend:
<img src='thumb.jpg' href='fullpicture.jpg'/>
<span href='fullpicture.jpg'>Simon's nice house</span>
or
<a href='fullpicture.jpg'>
<img src='thumb.jpg'/> <span>Simon's nice house</span>
</a>
? The former seems to me quite wasteful in its redundancy, implying in
turn that you need anchors, and since <a> it hardly a huge waste of
characters why not use it always? A "nice-to-have" shorthand that breaks
down for anything but the simplest cases hardly seems to justify the
dropping of a more powerful feature.
And even then, that could be made generic. There's no need for it to be
vocabulary specific.
> Bad sex is not pretty good, IMHO.
Still beats XHTML 2 linking though :p
--
Robin Berjon
|
