[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Simon
Simon said:
In my case, the split is between my two primary communities, so what may
seem like ancient history to you is critically important to me. Fixing
this is going to be damn hard, but papering over a process failure
doesn't seem like a good start.
Didier replies:
I agree with you Simon. Having XHTML not using xlink (based on sound
reasons) indicates a schism in the XML framework. If within W3C, the
different facet of the consortium produced XML specifications are not
used, how can we expect that it will be the case among the developers.
You know the joke about a camel being a horse designed by a comity. In
that case, the camel even rejected one of its paws :-)
When we observe the computer industry we can notice that when things are
not made upward compatible, there is a breakdown in a the marketplace. I
guess that this is a signal to the market not to move to XHTML but stick
with the actual SGML based language (i.e. HTML). Hummm, will the web
eventually move to XML? I doubt since the probability is quite high that
we'll have this kind of situation to occur more and more often. The
camel will need several prostheses :-)
Cheers
Didier PH Martin
|
