Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Others have pointed to threads on the TAG list that summarize most of the issues -- though I must respectfully disagree with Tim that the root of the problem is a misinterpretation of the XLink charter by the HTML WG. That said, when Tim speaks in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0175.html >>I think that this issue is worth investing some TAG time in. My reasoning may be naive, but here it is: Today's HTML hyperlinks changed the world, even though they are metadata-light, single-ended, and without builtin indirection. If you could add some metadata, linkbases, and multi-endedness without compromising the web architecture, the world might get changed again. XLink is the best attempt yet in this direction. If the idea is basically wrong, we should say so. If it's OK but the design needs fixing, we should say so. If it's right, we should apply TAG pressure to enrich the Web's repertoire of linking constructs. I can't imagine an issue which is more central to the Web architecture. -Tim << He's absolutely correct. The HTML WG's position has been for years now that the XLink attempt, while an attempt, is certainly not the best that the W3C can produce under any measure, and that the design does indeed need some serious fixing. Further, Stephen Pemberton is quite right that HTML was told essentially "if you don't like it, don't use it". Broken processes don't make for good results. Ann
|
