[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Chris Maden writes:
> The XLink WG (and the XML WG before it) made a good-faith effort at
> solution 2). 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.
Eek. So it sounds like you're saying that the "conspiracy theories"
about the W3C having more interest in URIs and namespaces than in their
(often dire) impact on markup specifications have some serious grounding
in truth.
Ouch. There were already reasons for question the W3C's stewardship of
markup, but this is extra depressing. Rather than just questioning the
unfortunate influence of member companies, we also need to question the
impact of Web architecture misapplied to markup.
URI-poisoning - the unfortunate imposition of the 'classical' view of
URIs through specifications with too few constraints and too little
explanation of what a given URI does - seems to be causing endless
discussion. Maybe it's URIs that need to be quarantined.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
