[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>..XLink is not yet really credible
>because everyone feels they can get away with ignoring it. The W3C
should >be
>*making* XLink credible by encouraging its use in specs where
applicable, >and
>providing advocacy to implementors so we have less of the mess you
point >out.
Okay, if we define credibility as meaning used in specs where linking is
necessary then I agree that it might be nice to have this, and that the
recent XHTML 2.0 draft functions as a declaration of XLink's
non-credibility.
Of course on one level credibility in this way is defined by implementer
support and best-practices, and perhaps the non-credibility of XLink
bubbles up from a mass of individuals who refuse to see it as being
credible. People who are perhaps once bitten twice shy, of which I am
one.
|
