• To: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>,xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 21:16:02 -0700
• In-reply-to: <3D545395.8080203@t...>
• References: <E840F0B7E6189547BDB91DA8BF2228AB28C68F@c...>

At 04:43 PM 8/9/2002 -0700, Tim Bray wrote:


>   <anything-at-all xlink:href="foo">...
>
>I assume this must simply be an aesthetic issue since the above poses no 
>technical problems whatsoever, and is in fact substantially easier to deal 
>with than out-of-line markup that requires you know about a schema.

While I don't have access to the full (lengthy, repeated often) discussions 
currently at home, I do want to step in here and say it's NOT in any way 
shape or form "simply an aesthetic issue". There are real fundamental 
capabilities that were not addressed in the XLink spec, despite many 
comments and protests (in fact the requirements for XLink were rewritten 
midstream with a result that avoided some of the HTML WG's requirements).

I'll make an effort to post a concise and complete list of issues that lead 
to the development of HLink as an option on Monday.

Ann

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>

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

• Prev by Date: Upload Carriage returns Form
• Next by Date: RE: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• 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