[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:07:28 -0400
• In-reply-to: <E17e76O-0007ER-00@m...>

Uche Ogbuji writes:
> > This message in particular:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0199.html
> > 
> > reads like an acknowledgment that the XLink WG did in fact say more
> > or less "the hell with XHTML"
> 
> It doesn't read that way to me at all.  Can you explain?  No such
> thing is in the text, so you'll have to show how it may be in the
> subtext.

Sure.  Read this piece of it hard, and decide whether the XLink WG
actually felt that the concerns of the HTML WG were important.  
-----------------------------------
 > 2: It must be possible to apply XML link semantics to existing 
documents by
 > modifying the documents' DTDs only, requiring no modification to the
 > document instances themselves.

Yes, the XLink WG failed to meet this requirement.

 > We also thought that requirement 2.3:
 >
 >     XLink must support HTML 4.0 linking constructs.
 >
 > meant that XLink would support, well, HTML 4.0 linking constructs.
 > This turned out to be a matter of interpretation.

Yes, the XLink WG interpreted this to mean that what they built should
have power and flexibility as rich as that in HTML4.
-----------------------------------------

In short, they "failed to meet" a requirement that the XHTML WG
considered important, and "interpreted" away a requirement that they
actually support HTML 4.0 linking constructs.

I have a very hard time reading this much more kindly than "go away; we
don't care about what you want."  Then again, I've had that response
from the XLink WG on enough occasions that I'm almost certainly biased.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• References:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XLink 2.0 Requirements
• Next by Date: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Previous by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Next by thread: Architectural Forms (was Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread