[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 02:17 PM 8/16/2002 -0400, Ann Navarro wrote:
>At 01:01 PM 8/16/2002 -0400, Didier PH Martin wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Our comments have been linked within this discussion multiple times.
>
>As Shane pointed out earlier (as well), we hope to have a document in the
>public space Real Soon Now that will perhaps better demonstrate our needs.
>However, it's not fair to assert that they're unspecified at this point --
>it's been hashed over and over and over again.
True, but I notice how Elliote's and Didier's main point has gone
unobserved:
The main complaint the HTML WG had about XLink was that it didn't
recognize the "href" attribute as a wonderful and unique thing that ought
to have it's own special place.
Since XHTML 2.0 has dropped a ton of familiar language, why should
the "href" attribute remain untouched? As Elliote pointed out, simple
XLinks do much of what the HTML WG requires. If the HTML WG would be
willing to lose href's special status, then a lot of the nasty technical
bits to the problem would be solved, leaving us to focus on the more easily
solved issues.
--->Ben
|
