Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Jeni wrote - > > I absolutely agree, and that's why pushing the generic descriptions of > the links into a schema, rather than having them declared in the > instance, is a good idea. It means that *authors* can simply do what > they've always been doing: > > <img src="my.gif" /> > > without having to worry about the fact that for an XLink application > to understand the img it actually has to look more like: > Even though I usually try to avoid defaulting or fixing values in a schema (so that a non-validating processor will work right), I think I agree with Jeni here. I think that xhtml will almost always be processed by special-purpose processors, and that makes it reasonable to impose a schema (hopefully compatible with DTDs) like this. The most desirable way (for me) to look at this is that it would be the **customization** of a higher abstraction that would be done at the schema level. By means of the customization, the application syntax would be simple. Cheers, Tom P
|
