• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 14:53:52 -0400
• In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020817135659.023548b8@m...>

Ben Trafford writes:
> It would actually be nice to see the reasons summarized in a
> coherent, single email to this list...preferably from a
> representative of the XHTML people.

Given the long and rather tortured history of the XLink spec, it might
be nice to see a single such coherent email explaining the perspective
of the XLink WG as well.

"XLink is a W3C Recommendation and therefore you must abide by it"
doesn't seem like a particularly reasonable thing to say to people whose
comments on XLink appear to have been rejected out of hand with little
explanation.

Given my prior experiences with this WG, I'm prone to take all of its
comments with a ton of salt, but a coherent explanation of the why
behind the spec might help wash some of that salt away.


-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.com may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>
  • RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@l...>

• References:
  • RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@l...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• Next by Date: RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• Next by thread: RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread