Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Hi Elliotte, Elliotte said: I think xlink:show and xlink:actuate were mostly intended to reproduce the existing semantics of different kinds of HTML links. For the most part, I think simple XLinks map to HTML fairly well. I'm a little surprised the HTML folks object to these so strongly. The major argument I see against XLink is the question of backwards compatibility and familiarity, but XHTML 2.0 has already tossed these worthy goals in the trash bin, so I don't think they can object to XLink on these grounds. Didier replies: I agree and I am too very surprised to see how schizophrenic W3c is becoming. The SVG WG picked xlink, the XHTML WG do not want to use it, what else? At first I thought that it was because we didn't wanted to break the existing document base, to provide a baby step increment. Looking more at the proposed modification some are quite important and lead to a break in the HTML evolution. I have to admit that I am a bit confuse about the WG goal and intentions, or maybe it is because the WG itself is confused :-) I would be very much interested to know and understand the motivations behind the xlink specs rejection. Cheers Didier PH Martin
|
