• To: AndrewWatt2000@a...
• Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w...>
• Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 06:55:07 +0900 (JST)
• Cc: MDubinko@c..., xml-dev@l..., shane@a...,tbray@t...
• In-reply-to: <c3.26ff20ca.2a856d96@a...>
• Organization: W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
• References: <c3.26ff20ca.2a856d96@a...>

Just for the record:

AndrewWatt2000@a... wrote:

>  Background materials at:
> > 
> > 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jun/0116.html
> > And response at:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0158.html
> 
> I read Steven Pemberton's email which you cite to indicate that there is a 
> substantive problem here with XLink.  On that generality we seem to agree.
> 
> However, it did seem to me that at least one point he raises may be a red 
> herring. He comments that "it was too clumsy to use a different namespace" 

It was Tim Berners-Lee who put it that way:

    http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/XLink

and the HTML WG felt it's utterly misrepresenting the whole argument,
that's why he sent a response.  It's not fair to attribute that
sentence to Steven.

Regards,
-- 
Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w...
W3C - World Wide Web Consortium

• References:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...

• Prev by Date: quarantining namespaces
• Next by Date: Re: XLink olden days
• 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