Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...> wrote: | It would help to understand why xlink is broken. Xlink itself may or may not be broken. The sanctioned way to use it is broken. | Off course, we may not like the namespaces or the way namespaces are | handled I believe the critics are in a minority. That's normal with a maguffin as long as it continues to enchant. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=0euiot4uvoushj2sa0dg3bfqjvh89t1mbk@4... | but it remains that from W3C, as an institution, we expect consistency | and coherency. Emerson's aphorism comes to mind. | The actual problem is that a particular W3C WG says that there are | some showstoppers with Xlink, a respected member of this WG, Ann | assured us that we'll have a document stating the reasons why such | breakdown is happening I agree, we should wait for this document. | (and thus invalidating the xlink theory/specifications). I'm guessing there's nothing particularly wrong with the basic theory. The problem is in the um, recommended, practice.
|
