[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: Ben Trafford <ben@l...>,Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:43:54 -0400
• Cc: mimasa@w...,xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020812112012.02caf220@m...>
• References: <E17eGxn-0007rf-00@m...><Message from Ben Trafford <ben@l...><5.1.0.14.0.20020812003732.02b0c3e8@m...>

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

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

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

• Prev by Date: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Next by Date: RE: Comparable considered necessary
• Previous by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Next by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread