[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Uche Ogbuji writes:
> > This message in particular:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0199.html
> >
> > 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.
Sure. Read this piece of it hard, and decide whether the XLink WG
actually felt that the concerns of the HTML WG were important.
-----------------------------------
> 2: It must be possible to apply XML link semantics to existing
documents by
> modifying the documents' DTDs only, requiring no modification to the
> document instances themselves.
Yes, the XLink WG failed to meet this requirement.
> We also thought that requirement 2.3:
>
> XLink must support HTML 4.0 linking constructs.
>
> meant that XLink would support, well, HTML 4.0 linking constructs.
> This turned out to be a matter of interpretation.
Yes, the XLink WG interpreted this to mean that what they built should
have power and flexibility as rich as that in HTML4.
-----------------------------------------
In short, they "failed to meet" a requirement that the XHTML WG
considered important, and "interpreted" away a requirement that they
actually support HTML 4.0 linking constructs.
I have a very hard time reading this much more kindly than "go away; we
don't care about what you want." Then again, I've had that response
from the XLink WG on enough occasions that I'm almost certainly biased.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
