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

["Ben Trafford" <ben@prodigal.ca>]

On 9/24/2006, "Alexander Johannesen" <alexander.johannesen@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>          When I say "trick," I mean, "a hack for something that
>> should be based on markup + styling."
>
>"Should be"?

Yes, should be. As in, it's the smarter thing to do. I'm not speaking
from some sort of moral high-ground. I'm speaking from the results of
bitter experience.

>>          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?

Because scripting introduces a host of problems I've already mentioned:
crossbrowser compatibility, ease of use, accessibility, etc.

>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".

Having written thousands of lines of both CSS and Javascript, I'm coming
down cleanly on the side of CSS being better implemented than
Javascript. Moreover, it can be repurposed in ways that are far more
difficult in Javascript -- for audio output, print, etc. It's easier
for the developer and has better crossbrowser support.

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

In terms of making dropdown menus appear and -look- the same way, sure.
In terms of modelling what a dropdown menu -is- (a multi-ended link),
it's a simple matter that CSS simply doesn't support styling links in
any significant way. So we're stuck with crappy implementations.

>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?

Have I done a detailed, scientific survey? No. And I'm not going to
bother. Experience on the Web since there's been a Web has been
sufficient enough for me.

This is Ye Olde Rathole, in my opinion. Somebody puts forward something
which is pretty obvious, and other people demand some sort of survey
before even starting to work on it. Most good technology exists because
somebody had an idea based on experience, built a prototype, and saw
what stuck.

The <blink> tag didn't stick. But XML did, as an example of something
that was built based on people's experience, and by the way, was
started as a skunkworks project, not a formal effort.

Formalism is overrated.

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

"Good link" may have been a misnomer. "Powerful link" would be a
better term. Links that do more than your basic HTML <a> tag; links that
people are trying to reproduce via scripting, with varying success.

>Some examples? What exactly are you talking about here?

I suggest going back through the thread. I've given numerous examples,
and I don't plan to retype them all.

>I'm just unsure about *what* this "better linking" really is, that's
>all.

Read the XLink spec. It describes better linking.

>>          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?

Good markup encourages good browser features. This is part of the impetus
for introducing XLink-style support into CSS -- people are only using
the linking they absolutely need right now, rather than exploring the
possibilities. Why? Because linking beyond <a> is -hard-. It doesn't
need to be.

--->Ben