Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 02:45:32PM -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Even when we played with n-way links, linkbases, etc., most of the
> implementations I saw were pop-up menus and the like with a query
> returning a set of values then used to initialize the control. Given
> what we have for controls, is there something better about an n-way
> link beyond using Add.Item, SelectedItem.Text, etc. other than having
> a platform independent way to say that without having to know which
> GUI we are designing for?
Yes. Google can't follow procedural links, and isn't likely to.
Procedural (ECMAscript) links are hard to manage and maintain. They're
hard to reason about. They're hard for archiving bots to follow.
They're often not made accessible, because the Web designer made them
rather than the browser/UA developer. They can be hard to
internationalise. Or internationalize in other places :-)
All the usual reasons why standards can help.
> Or inverted indices?
I think that's a different issue.
> I think XLink is fallow because current systems make it easy to
> do what we do with that sort of thing in ways we are all comfortable
> with doing it. If it is to be an innovation, shouldn't be more
> than a change of clothing?
Yes, I agree.
Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/