• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 04:13:00 +0000
• In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020816230611.0249d7a0@m...>
• References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020816221755.026d73a8@m...> <000b01c24546$9ef32f80$6401a8c0@didierhome> <p04330101b982cad47be1@[192.168.254.4]> <5.1.0.14.0.20020816221755.026d73a8@m...> <20020817024254.GB1698@s...> <5.1.0.14.0.20020816230611.0249d7a0@m...>

Ben Trafford <ben@l...> wrote:

| Since [XHTML 2.0 is] going to face those roadblocks already, there's 
| no significant cost to losing "href".

In favor of silly-prefix:href?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>

• References:
  • RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@l...>
  • RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>
  • Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
    • From: Matt Gushee <mgushee@h...>
  • Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@l...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• Next by Date: Re: WXS acronym?
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• Next by thread: RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread