David Lee scripsit:
> My take is a little more serious. If an attribute is part of the
> xml namespace then there is a presumption that all consumers of "XML"
> understand and apply the semantics.
Not at all. It's quite common, for example, not to support xml:space,
and there are plenty of document types that use id or something else
rather than xml:id. The xml:* attributes are there if you need them,
but otherwise have no special status.
> Unlike HTML where the intent of the HTML semantics is very tightly bound
> to presentation in a browser. XML (or MicroXML) is not necessarily
> bound to presentation semantics. So what does it mean in the general
> sense to recognize and support the semantics of href and friends ?
Hyperlinking is not about presentation, it's about expressing a relationship
between documents. For various hysterical raisins, XML-based document types
have most often chosen to use non-generic markup to express hyperlinking.
--
Note that nobody these days would clamor for fundamental laws John Cowan
of *the theory of kangaroos*, showing why pseudo-kangaroos are
physically, logically, metaphysically impossible. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Kangaroos are wonderful, but not *that* wonderful. --Dan Dennett on zombies
