• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• From: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@j...>
• Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 17:12:08 -0400
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <3D59431B.5080901@t...>

Tim Bray wrote:
 
> Chris' statement of the history is pretty fair.  I
> personally ended up coming down against AF-style markup both
> for namespaces and for XLink because I thought you ended up
> with ugly, error-prone markup 

Funny how perspectives differ.  Some hear "cologne"; some see, well,
"colon".  

New World odors aside, attributes are just attributes; does anyone
really find colonized instances "pretty"?  To me they resemble rabid
Rottweilers let loose in the Louvre.

(And as to error-prone, uncountable email and newsgroup threads later,
... no comment.)


/Jelks

• References:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Next by Date: RE: XML, hypertext
• 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