|
|
Re: [xml-dev] XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In a message dated 10/08/2002 22:55:29 GMT Daylight Time, mimasa@w3.org writes:
> However, it did seem to me that at least one point he raises may be a red
> herring. He comments that "it was too clumsy to use a different namespace"
It was Tim Berners-Lee who put it that way:
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/XLink
and the HTML WG felt it's utterly misrepresenting the whole argument,
that's why he sent a response. It's not fair to attribute that
sentence to Steven.
Hi,
You are correct. I misquoted. Sorry.
I still think it would be very useful to have a clear, public indication of what the HTML WG's concerns are about XLink.
Ann has indicated that she may try to summarise those early in the coming week. Can you summarise the main points of, presumably technical, concern of which you are aware?
Does Steven Pemberton's email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0158.html) fully summarise the HTML WG's concerns? Or are there other substantive issues? He says there are "many" causes for concern. Can you list those?
Simon has indicated (rightly or wrongly) that the HTML WG is "angry" about XLink. Are the WG's continuing concerns a reflection of emotion/frustration or are there weighty technical issues which are insuperable?
BTW ... and this is just my curiosity ... why hasn't the HTML WG updated its name to reflect its current (and recent) role?
Andrew Watt
|
|
|
|
|
|