Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Liam, On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 15:59 +0000, Rushforth, Peter wrote: > recognition by the XML community of the cultural fact of the > recognition of the "style" of HTML affordance that is > recognized globally would be the first step. > You have to be careful what you standardise. I agree. See plugs / receptacles. But once you standardize on something workable, say AC (MicroXML, json serialization etc), maybe it will enable an exponential advance in civilization similar to the advent of transmittable/transmutable power. The plugs / receptacles already exist (uniform interface). Need to adapt to that fact, and get on with it. > At one time the "obvious and universal affordance" of a hypertext link > was that it was coloured green - this came from Microsoft Help. It's still often underlined. > The href attribute is pretty obvious and natural to people who grew up > with HTML, as is the (artificial and unfortunate) distinction between > href and src. No, the semantics are different. Here's where Marc Andreesen decided to use that string: http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0182.html > The title and alt elements on "a" and "img" elements in HTML are an > awfully bad design, and should obviously not be used in other > vocabularies. In time they will probably be supplemented by other > standard but more powerful methods, just as the label-for mechanism > arose for making forms accessible and translatable. I can't say, really. But since they don't play a role in the underlying protocol, it seems safe to leave them out. For now. > On the other hand, the (disputed) longdesc on the img element is a > reminder that sometimes one element participates in more than one > outgoing link. The dispute is a good enough reason to not include it in xml:. Once the waters have calmed, and a good solid RFC defines the concept, maybe then is a good time to look at it. > If you want to add features to XML to make it compete with HTML, Not compete, collaborate. > Don't start out by saying, "those guys are successful so they got > everything right and if we copy them we'll be successful too" as this > rarely works out well in the long term. Evolution is evolution. > But I think a CG to look at linking for the Web would most likely end up > making proposals to add features to HTML, with notes on how they could > be implemented in browsers today using JavaScript and/or CSS, and clear > explanation of fallback behaviour, rather than hard-wiring some stuff > into XML. I think it is easier to add semantics to a language which is built to allow new semantics to be defined. Peter
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
