• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@i...>
• Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:29:27 -0500

Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> In one respect, yes: XLink 1.1 defines a simple profile, and allows
> the use of xlink:href without an accompanying xlink:type.  As a result
> of this change such usage, which is already widespread in SVG and
> DocBook, becomes conformant.  AKA paving the footpaths.

I suppose - I guess it's fair to say that I find this severely 
underwhelming.  And my understanding was that IRIs were permitted 
(though not required) by XLink, as it didn't strictly define URIs.

XLink support as a general feature seems to be vanishing, as the copied 
August message below from Henri Sivonen points out.

It seems like there may well be necromancers who want this particular 
re-animation, but in general it seems likely to stay dead.  Zombies and 
spectres can march the earth, but most folks won't encounter them.

I do still regularly dream of XLink-based applications, though - I've 
just concluded I can't actually have them in the contexts where I'd like 
them.

Thanks,
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/



> On Aug 27, 2009, at 16:49, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> 
>> Simple links are supported in a few browsers, but that particular dream faded.
> 
> Support is on its way out:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=516906
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=515494
> 
> The non-support on MathML elements is an accident. Most of the SVG stuff doesn't really use XLink facilities but uses the same attribute names, which pretty much shows how a generic mechanism is a failure in practice.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xlink 1.1
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w...>
  • RE: xlink 1.1
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>

• References:
  • xlink 1.1
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
  • Re: xlink 1.1
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: xlink 1.1
    • From: ht@i... (Henry S. Thompson)