[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
henrik.martensson@bostream.nu (Henrik Martensson) writes:
>Please give a practical example of the problems with the structures of
>XHTML. (I assume you meant XHTML, and not HTML.) BTW, I did read the
>src/href example:
As far as the vocabulary structure, there is pretty much no difference.
There is, however, a large hassle between XLink XHTML 2.0's proposed
"href anywhere", which is one of the smarter (and simpler) things I've
seen.
>><img src="thumbnail.jpg" href="fullpicture.jpg" />
>
>It was done in a way that makes it necessary to write special linking
>code that works only for XHTML, even though the same linking problem
>crops up in most XML formats for authoring human readable documents.
>Not a good way to solve the problem, unless you are a consultant and
>want to charge over and over again for doing the same thing.
I'd like the people who actually use the vocabulary to have the easiest
possible time using it - that the vocabulary actually makes sense in its
own context.
>You could do this:
>
><img xmlns:e="http://iwillpatentthis.org/link/embed/onload";
> xmlns:t="http://iwillpatentthis.org/link/traverse/onclick";
> e:src="thumbnail.jpg"
> t:href="fullpicture.jpg" />
>
>This would be pretty close to what you suggested, with the added
>benefit that the links can now be processed by generic link processing
>software, even if the attribute names are changed. However, I suspect
>that you would not like this solution. I don't, though my reasons may
>be a little different from yours.
No, I don't like it. That's ridiculous, and worse than XLink to boot.
You've put more information into namespace URIs than makes sense to me
even in my most perverse moods. Is this supposed to be comic relief?
>Even if it were true that XLink would not be practical for use with
>HTML, that would be no reason to kill it. HTML itself isn't very useful
>for authoring structured information. Nobody has suggested killing it
>off because of that. Err, let me rephrase: nobody will succeed killing
>it off because of that.
No, but HTML is by far the most widely used form of hypertext out there,
both in terms of authors and in terms of users. XLink's failure to cope
with that reality - and the past hopes of the W3C TAG that they could
impose XLink on XHTML - make the story both amusing and depressing.
>> That's basically like telling me "but W3C XML Schema works for my
>> cases, so how dare you complain about its failings?"
>
>No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that your argument:
>
>a. is contrary to my personal experience with XLink
>b. would be more convincing if you provided examples
>
>It is very obvious that you have strong feelings about XLink, just as I
>do. I would be very interested in learning about particular instances
>where using XLink got you or someone else into trouble. This would, I
>hope, enable me to understand your views a bit better.
At this point I am more than tired of people on xml-dev demanding
examples when the structure and aims of a specification are being
questioned. I've already handed a brick (wrapped in a Christmas ribbon)
to one person who kept asking for concrete. I find the (X)HTML cases
clear enough, though apparently they fail to convince some group of
people with whom I have little in common.
In general, I find the XLink approach to be much like the Pompidou
Centre. Interesting in that it exposes all that infrastructure, but not
a pattern I wish to follow in my own vocabulary design - and something I
can't see encouraging as best practice even in those cases where it
could work.
I don't mind working with pointy brackets, which I see as somewhat akin
to visible mortise-and-tenon joints, but working on collections of
exposed URIs or unreliable defaulted attributes feels like poor
craftsmanship.
>I am not saying that you should not criticize XLink. On the contrary,
>we should always view XML recommendations with a critical eye, just as
>we should everything else with a critical eye, except spouses. If we
>don't, we can't improve anything, ever. I do say that while you make
>your feelings perfectly clear, it is less clear, to me at least, what
>they are based on. That is why I ask for examples. I want to
>understand your point of view.
No, you wish to talk me out and 'solve' my problems. Thanks, but no
thanks. I've been through this set of hoops too many times with too
many people with the same attitude.
....
>> >If initiative is defined as writing the same boring implementations
>> >for cross-references and subdocuments over and over again, then you
>> >are right.
>>
>> I'd prefer to define initiative as crafting solutions that fit
>> particular problems well. If you'd prefer to automate things and
>> thereby avoid thinking about them, I think you have some deep
>> problems that may well please your employers but produce enormous
>> brittleness in the longer term.
>
>I see now. I have a different opinion than you, so obviously I must
>have "some deep problems". I will of course call my clients and warn
>them that you have discovered that my link designs are brittle. It is
>embarrassing to think of all the effort we spent on review boards,
>independently working reviewers, and so forth. We should have saved
>our money and just called you.
>
>Thank you for pointing my problems out, it was very helpful. Really
>strengthens your argument.
I find XLink's use of namespaces a poor choice for clean vocabulary
design, it's structures both limiting and underspecified, and the claims
about automated link harvesting boldy overstated. That you appear to
like these things does lead me to question your judgment more generally.
I doubt that you recognize these things as problems, and you're welcome
to go on spreading the XLink gospel. You're not obligated to see as
problems the things I see as problems. I will, however, suggest that
they are real problems.
>Sadly, you are probably right. XLink will probably never be very
>popular, regardless of its qualities. Whether something really is good
>or bad matters much less than the perception of it.
True, to an extent. In this case I'm gratified to find that a
tremendous lack of interest in a specification happens to coincide with
my poor opinion of it.
|
