Lists Home |
Date Index |
> Tim Bray writes:
> > There are also several follow-ups to Seven's message in the www-tag
> > archive, including one in which I try to fill in the history. Those
> > who care about this issue might want to check it out. -Tim
> The thread (so far as I'm sure which one you're referencing, since
> there's no direct reply to Steven's message 0158) is at:
> This message in particular:
> reads like an acknowledgment that the XLink WG did in fact say more or
> less "the hell with XHTML"
It doesn't read that way to me at all. Can you explain? No such thing is in
the text, so you'll have to show how it may be in the subtext.
> (and architectural forms).
So how often do you use architectural forms?
I must say that for the vocabularies I deal with, I prefer XLink's current
approach to the AF approach. It's possible that I would feel differently
about this is XML had an AF mechanism that was as simple and widespread as XML
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
Basic XML and RDF techniques for knowledge management, Part 7 - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think12.html
Keeping pace with James Clark - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-jclark.html
Python and XML development using 4Suite, Part 3: 4RDF - http://www-105.ibm.com/developerworks/education.nsf/xml-onlinecourse-bytitle/8A1EA5A2CF4621C386256BBB006F4CEC