[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Elliotte,
Elliotte said:
I think xlink:show and xlink:actuate were mostly intended to
reproduce the existing semantics of different kinds of HTML links.
For the most part, I think simple XLinks map to HTML fairly well. I'm
a little surprised the HTML folks object to these so strongly. The
major argument I see against XLink is the question of backwards
compatibility and familiarity, but XHTML 2.0 has already tossed these
worthy goals in the trash bin, so I don't think they can object to
XLink on these grounds.
Didier replies:
I agree and I am too very surprised to see how schizophrenic W3c is
becoming. The SVG WG picked xlink, the XHTML WG do not want to use it,
what else? At first I thought that it was because we didn't wanted to
break the existing document base, to provide a baby step increment.
Looking more at the proposed modification some are quite important and
lead to a break in the HTML evolution. I have to admit that I am a bit
confuse about the WG goal and intentions, or maybe it is because the WG
itself is confused :-) I would be very much interested to know and
understand the motivations behind the xlink specs rejection.
Cheers
Didier PH Martin
|
