• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:11:11 -0400
• In-reply-to: <3D56A739.5070804@t...>

Tim Bray writes:
> There are also several follow-ups to Seven's message in the www-tag
> archive, including one in which I try to fill in the history.  Those
> who care about this issue might want to check it out. -Tim

The thread (so far as I'm sure which one you're referencing, since
there's no direct reply to Steven's message 0158) is at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/thread.html#19

This message in particular:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0199.html

reads like an acknowledgment that the XLink WG did in fact say more or
less "the hell with XHTML" (and architectural forms).  

History isn't always pretty, and sometimes grudges have real
foundations.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• References:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Complex or Simple content usage
• Next by Date: RE: Comparable considered necessary
• Previous by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Next by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread