RE: how would one define credible linking?
>..XLink is not yet really credible >because everyone feels they can get away with ignoring it. The W3C should >be >*making* XLink credible by encouraging its use in specs where applicable, >and >providing advocacy to implementors so we have less of the mess you point >out. Okay, if we define credibility as meaning used in specs where linking is necessary then I agree that it might be nice to have this, and that the recent XHTML 2.0 draft functions as a declaration of XLink's non-credibility. Of course on one level credibility in this way is defined by implementer support and best-practices, and perhaps the non-credibility of XLink bubbles up from a mass of individuals who refuse to see it as being credible. People who are perhaps once bitten twice shy, of which I am one.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format