Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 11:36 AM 8/12/2002 -0400, Ben Trafford wrote: >At 09:18 AM 8/12/2002 -0600, Uche Ogbuji wrote: >>But was the use of namespaces really their biggest >>problem? Why? Because the >>documents would have to add another namespace (silly objection, that)? >>Because they wanted all elements of their vocabulary in one seamless >>anmespace? (I can't think of any technical reason for needing this). > > That seemed to pretty much be it, but I'd be happy to be > corrected. Issues of backwards compatibility were cited, in that they > wanted existing Web folks to adopt their standard. It continues to baffle me that the substantive issues raised by the HTML WG are simply ignored, instead suppositions of "they don't like namespaces", or "it's an aesthetic" issue. Our last call comments, which were rejected outright, can be found at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2000JanMar/0073.html > It's at: > > http://www.w3.org/XML/2000/10/xlink-CR-comments.html > > And the last call comments are at: > > http://www.w3.org/2000/06/xlink-comments.html Rather tellingly, the link to that from http://www.w3.org/2000/06/xlink-comments.html are summarized as: "The HTML WG philosophical report concludes with:" -- this is not a philosophical debate, actual use cases were provided, and rejected out of hand. It's very very clear that XLink is an example of process gone bad -- hopefully that much of a fubar situation won't happen again. Ann
|
