Hi Andrew,
Andrew said:
I think Ann
may be referring to:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0158.html
Didier replies:
Thanks a lot Andrew, I was lost in
the archive maze J
Now to the XHTML WG
If this is really the text Ann is referring too. I just read
reasons as
a) “believes”.
What is behind these believes? Compatibility with the legacy? Simple opinions?
For instance, it is stated that the WG do not believe that a type attribute is
necessary. Why? What are the reasons behind the “belief”.
b) Also “We think there are
semantic problems, since there are such clear
requirements from the existing usage of linking on the web, that XLink should at least support those”.What are explicitely these requirements that are not fulfilled? Are the reasons either social or technical? Can we know explicitly if it is social or technical or whatever other reason it is? Its OK the WG think that but what we want to know is what lead to this thinking.
I am sorry to hear that the WG got problems with the xlink WG but us, poor XML users, need to understand clearly the basis of your position. So, what was posted was not really giving answers, it was just expressing the frustration the WG encountered. We, as XML users, need sound reasons that could be discussed or at least if discussion is prohibited outside W3, to understand what’s behind the conclusions. To do so, a more elaborate document is needed in which issues are clearly stated and why current solutions (i.e. xlink) leads to a breakdown either from the social or technical point of view.
We need to understand and not only undergo the WG decisions.
Cheers
Didier PH Martin
