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

Re: xlink 1.1

• From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
• Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:01:33 -0500

"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com> writes:
> Dave Pawson wrote:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/PR-xlink11-20100225/Overview-diff10.html
>> diff to 1.0
>>
>> PR http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink11/
>
> Um, why?

I'm probably as responsible as anyone. And for my efforts, I got
to be the editor, so I've clearly paid for my sins :-)

Years ago, when DocBook was deciding how to do linking in DocBook
V5.0, we decided to use xlink:href.

> Is the shift from URI to IRI that important?

Not to me. To me, it's point 1 of http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink10-ext/
that's important to me: making simple XLinks an application-level
default.

> Are there users of XLink demanding revision?

In order for DocBook V5.0 to be conformant to XLink w/o attribute
defaulting, we needed XLink 1.1 so that the xlink:type attribute is
optional.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Who knows whether the best of men be
http://nwalsh.com/            | known? or whether there be not more
                              | remarkable persons forgot, than any
                              | that stand remembered in the known
                              | account of time.--Sir Thomas Browne

PGP signature