Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
> However, it did seem to me that at least one point he raises may be a red
You are correct. I misquoted. Sorry.
I still think it would be very useful to have a clear, public indication of what the HTML WG's concerns are about XLink.
Ann has indicated that she may try to summarise those early in the coming week. Can you summarise the main points of, presumably technical, concern of which you are aware?
Does Steven Pemberton's email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0158.html) fully summarise the HTML WG's concerns? Or are there other substantive issues? He says there are "many" causes for concern. Can you list those?
Simon has indicated (rightly or wrongly) that the HTML WG is "angry" about XLink. Are the WG's continuing concerns a reflection of emotion/frustration or are there weighty technical issues which are insuperable?
BTW ... and this is just my curiosity ... why hasn't the HTML WG updated its name to reflect its current (and recent) role?
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