• To: AndrewWatt2000@a...
• Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 11:04:41 -0700
• Cc: mimasa@w..., xml-dev@l...
• References: <96.2ab6b662.2a876dad@a...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020722

AndrewWatt2000@a... wrote:

> Does Steven Pemberton's email 
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0158.html) fully 
> summarise the HTML WG's concerns? Or are there other substantive issues? 
> He says there are "many" causes for concern. Can you list those?

There are also several follow-ups to Seven's message in the www-tag 
archive, including one in which I try to fill in the history.  Those who 
care about this issue might want to check it out. -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • 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: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...

• Prev by Date: Re: XML "needs" a credible linking specification? Discuss.
• Next by Date: Re: Complex or Simple content usage
• 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