[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Ben,
Ben said:
What I'd like to see the list discuss are the substantive
problems
raised by all of these groups, and then tear them apart, one by
one....just
like in the good ol' days of XML, when the XML WG would drop stuff on
XML-dev, see it hashed out, and then make a decision. That was a good
process. It worked.
Didier replies:
Ben, you cannot imagine how my brain is starving for that kind of
process. I am so tired of Byzantine fights that I wondering if I do not
have some ancestor affected by the Roman's Byzantine fights and if some
trace of this aversion remains in my DNA :-) (Even if I am half
laplander :-) ). <Indented to the XML-DEV community> Why don't we use
the Karl Popper epistemological process? Isn't that better than my dad
is stronger than yours' kind of process :0 (and My ET will be glad to
see that we stopped regressing and that we are evolving :-)
Ben said:
"What do we lose with XHTML dropping 'href' in favour of a
namespace-specific attribute, be it XLink or otherwise, in consideration
of
the fact that they've already changed huge chunks of a familiar markup
language?"
Didier replies:
>From the top of my hat (trying to be as much objective as I can) I would
say that it prevent XHTML to be backward compatible with previous specs
by increasing the distance between the legacy and the new XHTML spec. If
however, other major modifications are part of the spec that could lead,
by themselves, to such gap and lack of backward compatibility, then, I
would say that the backward issue became a ... non issue.
Another reason would be because of a total refusal of namespaces. But in
the case of xlink, we do not find major breakdowns because of namespace
usage. Or do we? If yes what are they?
Any other reasons that we can add to the list? (off course there are
some others I am sure)
If others help me maintain the list, I'll do my part and carry the torch
for a while.
Ben said:
Here's another:
"Should any generic hyperlinking specification either provide
behaviour instructions or provide some mechanism to refer to behaviour
instructions?" (e.g. XLink points to the XHTML spec for the behaviour of
a
simple link in an XHTML application, and XLink points to XSLFOs for the
processing of the same simple link in an XSLFO-aware browser, etc.)
Didier replies:
This is more a "what do you like?" kind of question and it leads to a
divergent process instead of leading to a convergent process. So, even
if I am tempted to answer, I'll stick to the Karl Popper process of
trying to invalidate the xlink theory/process.
Cheers
Didier PH Martin
|
