As if on cue following up my poking fun at XML in the last PPIG newsletter, an argument has erupted over the implementation of hyperlinks, perhaps the most basic feature of the web, in future versions of HTML that are XML-based. I thought this might be of interest to Ppiglets, because of the way the arguments seem to centre around apparent misunderstandings of complex and interrelated technical standards by the very people who write them.
The spark was this posting, where the Worldwide Web Consortium's Technical Architecture Group rejected a proposal for the incorporation of a mooted proposal, 'HLink' into the upcoming XHTML 2.0 standard, in favour of the existing standard, XLink: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0183.html This has provoked substantial negative reactions from many members of the XHTML 2.0 editoral committee, and much of the argument seems to be around issues of ensuring that web developers still be able to create links between web pages in future without having to use authoring tools or permanently opened technical reference manuals. To quote Ann Navarro, co-editor of XHTML 2.0, from this message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0198.html > We accept as a design requirement that tools are not, and are not likely to > soon be, the overwhelmingly primary means of document authoring. This means > that such *common and simple* activities as linking to another document, > linking intra-document, and "linking" images or any other media within a > document MUST NOT be so complex as to require an authoring tool, or a > reference work to be continuously propped open on the average web author's > desk. Links are simple. They must remain so. The current examples given > quite eloquently by Steven Pemberton are not -- not by any shade of meaning > of that word. > > So far, the review of these examples have primarily centered on whether or > not the 'embed' semantic has been misunderstood. Quite honestly, if it has > been so wholly misunderstood by the community that has developed and > reviewed HLink before it's publication, there is rampant misunderstanding > within the XML community as a whole (there is plenty of evidence of this > available). This points to a design flaw in XLink which has been > acknowledged by members of that Working Group. Efforts to ameliorate this > situation must be undertaken immediately. > > But the issue here is NOT whether 'embed', 'actuate', or 'replace' should > be used in these examples, it is the complexity and verbosity of these > examples that should be reviewed closely [1]. Further in terms of usability > of our vocabulary, these attributes of linking are REQUIRED to be on the > elements because we cannot assume that the user agent will read the DTD or > Schema -- just as any other generic XML document cannot assume support for > DTD or Schema processing. > > That the most basic activity of hypertext, linking between documents and > objects [2], becomes something that the majority of HTML authors will not > be able to write with their eyes closed let alone without a constant > reference source, is the ultimate failing of the XLink effort, and a vivid > demonstration of why the process of ignoring, rejecting, and subversion of > those requirements, clearly articulated more than 3 years ago, must be > rectified. Much more like this as thread replies from the original post. Enjoy. :-) -- Frank Wales [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] - Automatic footer for [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] unsubscribe discuss To join the announcements list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe announce To receive a help file, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] help This list is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/ If you have any problems or questions, please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
