• From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 02:02:24 -0400

At 01:51 AM 9/23/2006, peter murray-rust wrote:
>I need XLink for semantic relationships. I assumed that these were 
>implied in it as well as "rendering". From the recent discussion it 
>seems semantics is in a minority. When everyone talks about the 
>S/semantic W/web
>we are still obsessed with sighted humans.

         Well, humans. Not necessarily sighted ones. I tend to be a 
pretty big supporter of accessibility -- and that's yet another 
reason to pull smart linking into CSS, as CSS integrates with 
accessibility tools rather nicely, all told.

         In terms of semantics, what do you think XLink is lacking 
from your experience with CML?

--->Ben 

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: peter murray-rust <pm286@c...>

• References:
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Nathan Young -X \(natyoung - Artizen at Cisco\)" <natyoung@c...>
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Bob DuCharme" <bob@s...>
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: peter murray-rust <pm286@c...>