• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: XLink and XML specs (was Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death ofXLink and XPointer?)
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:48:23 -0400
• In-reply-to: <3D59431B.5080901@t...>

8/13/2002 1:34:19 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@t...> wrote:

>Anyhow, all this is history.  XLink exists.  Someone needs to decide 
>whether it is fatally flawed and should be deprecated, and if not, 
>whether it has a useful domain of application, and if so, whether W3C 
>specifications in that domain ought to be pressured to use it.  I 
>suggest that is is a more productive line of discussion, and I believe 
>it's one that the TAG is going to take up in the not-too-distant future. 


OK, I'll bite: IMHO the TAG should not pressure WGs to accept any 
technology that is not well-proven to be fully implementable,
useful and interoperable in real software systems.

I suspect the discussion of XLink would be very short if those
criteria were accepted :~)

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

• Prev by Date: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Next by Date: Can XLink be fixed?
• 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