• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:19:07 -0400
• In-reply-to: <3D59431B.5080901@t...>

Tim Bray writes:
> Anyhow, all this is history.  XLink exists.  Someone needs to decide
> whether it is fatally flawed and should be deprecated, and if not,
> whether it has a useful domain of application, and if so, whether W3C
> specifications in that domain ought to be pressured to use it.  I
> suggest that is is a more productive line of discussion, and I
> believe it's one that the TAG is going to take up in the
> not-too-distant future. 

Or, alternatively, whether XLink is just one of many linking
possibilities, much as W3C XML Schema is just one of many schema
possibilities.  Whether or not WXS is fatally flawed matters less when
it's only one choice among many rather than a burden forced on people.

W3C XML Linking, anyone?  (Never mind that RDF and HTML are also W3C
projects!)

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• References:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Next by Date: Pushing SAX events out onto the Web?
• Previous by thread: XLink and XML specs (was Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death ofXLink and XPointer?)
• Next by thread: RE: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread