[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?

• To: "'Elliotte Rusty Harold'" <elharo@m...>, "'Bob DuCharme'" <bobdc@s...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>
• Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:01:52 -0400
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <p04330101b982cad47be1@[192.168.254.4]>

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

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>

• References:
  • Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: XQuery subset (was RE: WXS acronym?)
• Next by Date: (Fwd) Re: WXS acronym?
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• Next by thread: RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread