• To: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>,"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:56:49 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3D5749A0.6050503@t...>
• References: <r01050300-1015-191153E2AD5E11D69D4E0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>

At 10:37 PM 8/11/2002 -0700, Tim Bray wrote:

>Clearly there's no benefit for HTML to adopt XLinks for untyped
>one-directional anchored links, HTML is already very good at that.  But
>if HTML wanted to add links with multiple ends, or which could be out of
>line, or could have some simple behaviors, why invent your own rather
>than adopt XLink?  The question is serious, not rhetorical.  -Tim

Tim, while I appreciate the honesty of the question, it frustrates me that 
given your position within XLink, that it has to be asked. We could spend 
several hours this morning digging through the communications between our 
groups -- but should that really be necessary? Steven even flew to France 
to a Face to Face meeting to explain our issues and concerns, and why we 
simply couldn't adopt your end product -- was he talking to the walls there?


Frustrated,

Ann

• References:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Comparable considered necessary
• 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