Re: [xml-dev] Xlink Isn't Dead

["Alexander Johannesen" <alexander.johannesen@gmail.com>]

Hola,

On 9/24/06, Ben Trafford <ben@prodigal.ca> wrote:
>          When I say "trick," I mean, "a hack for something that
> should be based on markup + styling."

"Should be"?

>          See, you're speaking from the perspective of "Javascript is
> the norm, we all use it, it's fine." Ten years ago, the idea that
> we'd need scripting on -every- website was abhorrent. Now people accept it.

Not sure I'm writing from any specific perspective as such, but, for
the sake of argument, assuming I do ... the problem with this is,
what?

>          As somebody who has written a few thousands lines of
> Javascript in my time, let me tell you, CSS support is generally more
> coherent across browsers than Javascript support.

Hehe, maybe you just haven't done enough CSS then. :) More seriously,
I disagree with JS support being skewed; it's the various object
models that are different. The object models are *not* the language
JS, but what browsers have chosen to stuff into it. I assume this is
what you're referring to, though, but I still can't accept it; I've
written a few thousand CSS templates in my time, and there is no where
near a coherent support across browsers, even today on simple things
like margins and paddings. JS have had a few more years to sort things
out, and I'm sure CSS will over time as well. But these are both
bolt-on technologies, neither of which are markup so I'm not sure why
you think CSS is somehow "better".

>          Also, if we keep things in the land of markup vs. the land
> of code, we have an easier time with things like accessibility for
> websites. CSS is a web accessibility enabler; Javascript is a
> disabler, by and large.

Well, depends on the markup, depends on the JS, but in general you're right.

>          The purist says: code is for doing things -- markup is for
> modelling them. So why am I see menus using code for display
> purposes? Why aren't they modelled in markup + styling?

Well, that one is easy; there isn't good enough support across all
browsers for doing it in markup + CSS.

...

> >But that's assuming there's more than a 80% need for that, which is
> >what I'm asking; what is that assumption based on?
>
>          Er. The numerous examples I've given in this thread? To
> which you've uniformly replied, "Why not just use Javascript?"

Actually, I haven't replied that; you inferred it. But even still, I
don't feel you're adressing the question, which is; what sort of links
do people mostly want to make? How do we know the answer to this? How
do we support it? Are we sure that 80% of what all people want to do
isn't just to throw up an arbitrary link to something?

>          I think I've answered why, above. People shouldn't need to
> learn how to program just to make a good link work.

Uh, ok, but what is the definition of a "good link" as opposed to any
other link?

>          The need for an 80% is based on the fact that more than 80%
> of the sites I go to are using advanced linking features via some
> kind of scripting trick, or trying to emulate advanced linking
> features with CSS. And these aren't giant corporate portals; these
> are personal websites, small businesses, etc.

Some examples? What exactly are you talking about here?

>          Ten years ago, *ML people simply assumed linking support
> would get better over time, so they focused on other things. I don't
> think anyone actually expected to be using Javascript for -links- ten
> years down the line. It seems natural, and you seem to be taking a
> "If it it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach, but I say it only
> seems natural because of exposure.

No, I take a rather different approach, which is the simplest use of
the <a /> element / tag. I don't like JS anymore than I gather you do.
I'm just unsure about *what* this "better linking" really is, that's
all.

>          Imagine if someone told you that everytime you wanted to add
> visual accessibility options to a page, you needed to code them into
> Javascript.

But isn't that all for the features of browsers, and not a feature of
the markup itself?

>  I mean, heck, the visually impaired are only 10% of the
> population. They're not on the right side of the 80/20. And then the
> government mandates accessible webpages, so everyone is hacking code
> for visual accessibility options into their webpages that work with
> dubious functionality depending on the site and browser.

That's because they did a crap job to begin with in terms of
accessibility. Not sure I'm ready to blame poor remedy for *being* a
remedy. :)

...

>          Have I made myself clearer?

Not sure. Maybe. I still don't understand your CSS over JS progrom
half the time. Both technologies are there for various reasons, and
some use JS to do what should be in CSS, and some use CSS for what
probably is better in JS, and so forth. Both are technologies that
browsers may or may not do well.


Alex
-- 
"Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
                                                         - Frank Herbert
__ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________