Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Simon St.Laurent wrote: > robin.berjon@e... (Robin Berjon) writes: >>The ability to understand links without knowledge of the >>vocabulary seems to me to be of high value. > > If it was, people might do it. It's way too early to tell, compound documents are still rare. Besides, people haven't exactly been given a chance. >>The ability to stuff embedding and hyperlinking on the same element >>appears to me to be of fairly little value. > > To you, perhaps. To me, it seems like basic functionality. Would you mind to expose in which ways stuffing those two functionalities onto the a single element is basic? To me inclusion is basic, but as I said the ability to include no more than one document at any given point is a silly limitation (and enough to render the feature useless to me). > I think there are multiple communities of hypertext practice out there, > and XLink, so far as I can tell, has proven optimal (heck, even > exciting) for none. That's another debate altogether -- XLink may not be sexy, but at least it's there. To misquote: "generic linking is like sex, even when it's bad it's still pretty good". -- Robin Berjon
|
