Subject: Re: XLink: behavior must go! From: Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 13:48:52 -0500 |
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. Good idea. > 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 http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco 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 XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XLink: behavior must go!, Jonathan Borden | Thread | size?, Larry Fitzpatrick |
Re: XLink: behavior must go!, Paul Prescod | Date | XT error with new xsl namespace, Avneet Sawhney |
Month |