• To: "'Elliotte Rusty Harold'" <elharo@m...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Slightly off, but... was: XUL appears to be dead, istheresome other standard that should be looked at
• From: "bryan" <bry@i...>
• Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:38:34 +0200
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <p04330101b950c6848a88@[192.168.254.4]>

Elliotte wrote:

>Actually Mozilla would let you do this using XLinks rather than HTML 
>links. In fact, you could make your html:a element an XLink too so it 
>works in both IE6 and Mozilla. Something like:

><item xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
>   <title>...</title>
>   <description>...</description>
>   <link>http://...</link>
>   <html:a href="http://..." xlink:href="http://...">...</html:a>
>   <dc:date>2002-07-09T10:19:17-01:00</dc:date>
></item>


I was just wondering since I don't do as much with Mozilla as I should,
but if I remember correctly it's xlink implementation was all simple
xlinks and didn't give any benefits beyond the basic html a link. Is
that incorrect? If so can someone give me a succinct description of the
xlink benefits Mozilla has above simple linking?

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Slightly off, but... was: XUL appears to be dead,istheresome other standard that should be looked at
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • RE: Slightly off, but... was: XUL appears to be dead,istheresome other standard that should be looked at
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Browser support of XML standards (WAS: RE:Slightly off, but... was: XUL appears to...)
• Next by Date: RE: Slightly off, but... was: XUL appears to be dead, istheresome other standard that should be looked at
• Previous by thread: RE: Slightly off, but... was: XUL appears to be dead,istheresome other standard that should be looked at
• Next by thread: RE: Slightly off, but... was: XUL appears to be dead,istheresome other standard that should be looked at
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread