XLink: behavior must go!
paul at prescod.net
Fri May 14 02:04:51 BST 1999
Walter Underwood wrote:
> I agree that they mix presentation and structure, but I also
> feel that it is worthwhile to capture some common situations.
> That is, allow people to define link "roles", but start out
> with a few standard roles. This is analogous to including
> xml:lang in the XML spec.
These are two very different things: link types and anchor roles are
semantic, not behavioral. I have no problem with a few pre-defined roles
though I can't think of many common ones.
> I'm hunting down a copy of the PCTE rationale, since it has a
> nice description of the link roles in PCTE, and how they got
> to that design.
> Meanwhile, maybe I should write a NOTE proposing a PI analogous
> to the robots meta tag (<?robots index="yes" follow="no"?>).
Another good idea. Published layered conventions are better than
"builtins". Too many builtins turn out to be not very useful "standalone"
is a perfect example.
Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
Earth will soon support only survivor species -- dandelions, roaches,
lizards, thistles, crows, rats. Not to mention 10 billion humans.
- Planet of the Weeds, Harper's Magazine, October 1998
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev