[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: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>,xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:45:35 -0400
• In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.2.20020809211345.00b30fb0@m...>
• References: <3D545395.8080203@t...><E840F0B7E6189547BDB91DA8BF2228AB28C68F@c...>

Others have pointed to threads on the TAG list that summarize most of the 
issues -- though I must respectfully disagree with Tim that the root of the 
problem is a misinterpretation of the XLink charter by the HTML WG.

That said, when Tim speaks in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0175.html

 >>I think that this issue is worth investing some TAG time in. My 
reasoning may be naive, but here it is: Today's HTML hyperlinks changed the 
world, even though they are metadata-light, single-ended, and without 
builtin indirection. If you could add some metadata, linkbases, and 
multi-endedness without compromising the web architecture, the world might 
get changed again. XLink is the best attempt yet in this direction. If the 
idea is basically wrong, we should say so. If it's OK but the design needs 
fixing, we should say so. If it's right, we should apply TAG pressure to 
enrich the Web's repertoire of linking constructs. I can't imagine an issue 
which is more central to the Web architecture. -Tim <<

He's absolutely correct. The HTML WG's position has been for years now that 
the XLink attempt, while an attempt, is certainly not the best that the W3C 
can produce under any measure, and that the design does indeed need some 
serious fixing.

Further, Stephen Pemberton is quite right that HTML was told essentially 
"if you don't like it, don't use it". Broken processes don't make for good 
results.

Ann

• References:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • RE: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@c...>
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Comparable considered necessary
• Next by Date: Re: Comparable considered necessary
• 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