[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
An organization creates a working but unextendible system,
uses its success to politically nullify other systems
which are extendible, then in the process of creating a
subset of these other systems, creates an environment
in which extensibility is now impossible?
Does the kneejerk stupidity of that ring out as loud
in your head as it does here?
Any people wonder why there is so much anger in the
markup community. Gad... lock up the gold and bury
it with the Pharoah in hopes the corpse will spend
it wisely in the next world. Yeah, that keeps the
economy moving ahead.
len
From: Christopher R. Maden [mailto:crism@maden.org]
I think it's pretty clear that 1) (and 1a)) were
unworkable. 2) was really killed by politics, as best I can remember;
architectural forms were completely unviable in the W3C environment, and
once namespaces came along, it was pretty much a requirement to use
them. Without attribute remapping, the options were 1) to trample on
users' naming freedom and reserve href across the board (which is still an
incomplete solution for HTML), or 3) to use namespace-reserved
attributes. I continue to think that, given the political restrictions,
the XLink WG made the right decision. 2) would have been stronger, but AFs
just didn't make the political grade.
|
