• To: <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Subject: RE: how would one define credible linking?
• From: "bryan" <bry@i...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:00:22 +0200
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <E17e5zz-0007Aa-00@m...>

>..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.

• References:
  • Re: how would one define credible linking?
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: XLink 2.0 Requirements
• Next by Date: RE: Comparable considered necessary
• Previous by thread: Re: how would one define credible linking?
• Next by thread: Complex or Simple content usage
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread