• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• From: Matt Gushee <mgushee@h...>
• Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:42:54 -0600
• In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020816221755.026d73a8@m...>
• References: <000b01c24546$9ef32f80$6401a8c0@didierhome> <p04330101b982cad47be1@[192.168.254.4]> <5.1.0.14.0.20020816221755.026d73a8@m...>
• Reply-to: Matt Gushee <mgushee@h...>
• Sender: <mgushee@h...>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.3.27i

On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 10:20:52PM -0400, Ben Trafford wrote:
> 
>         The main complaint the HTML WG had about XLink was that it didn't 
> recognize the "href" attribute as a wonderful and unique thing that ought 
> to have it's own special place.
> 
>         Since XHTML 2.0 has dropped a ton of familiar language, why should 
> the "href" attribute remain untouched? As Elliote pointed out, simple 
> XLinks do much of what the HTML WG requires.

They don't do anything at all until browser makers implement them and
developers use them. I wonder how many will feel the benefits to them
are sufficient to abandon the tried-and-true 'href'?

-- 
Matt Gushee
Englewood, Colorado, USA
mgushee@h...
http://www.havenrock.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>
  • Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@l...>

• References:
  • RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>
  • Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@l...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• Next by thread: Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread