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

RE: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?

• To: "'Christopher R. Maden'" <crism@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:49:55 -0500

An organization creates a working but unextendible system, 
uses its success to politically nullify other systems 
which are extendible, then in the process of creating a 
subset of these other systems, creates an environment 
in which extensibility is now impossible?

Does the kneejerk stupidity of that ring out as loud 
in your head as it does here?

Any people wonder why there is so much anger in the 
markup community.  Gad... lock up the gold and bury 
it with the Pharoah in hopes the corpse will spend 
it wisely in the next world.  Yeah, that keeps the 
economy moving ahead.

len

From: Christopher R. Maden [mailto:crism@m...]

I think it's pretty clear that 1) (and 1a)) were 
unworkable.  2) was really killed by politics, as best I can remember; 
architectural forms were completely unviable in the W3C environment, and 
once namespaces came along, it was pretty much a requirement to use 
them.  Without attribute remapping, the options were 1) to trample on 
users' naming freedom and reserve href across the board (which is still an 
incomplete solution for HTML), or 3) to use namespace-reserved 
attributes.  I continue to think that, given the political restrictions, 
the XLink WG made the right decision.  2) would have been stronger, but AFs 
just didn't make the political grade.

• Prev by Date: Mapping URLs to Qnames to Schema types
• Next by Date: Re: P2P and URIs
• 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