[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In my befuddled weekend memory, I confused two issues.
The idea expressed here was a draft on an XML-based language that did
circulate with a new namespace -- which was declared an error in the
production of that draft, and then changed back to the original.
The issue I meant to bring up, in terms of XLink, is that SMIL 2.0 went to
Rec without using XLink at all -- there's a "blessed" historical precedent.
Contrary to the implied contract that XML-based Recs must use all of the
previously published "generic" XML Recs.
Note that the XHTML would love to use XLink if it solved our problems, some
of which were put off for "further work", which has not been placed on the
forseeable agenda of that group.
After our returning-from-vacation chair climbs out from under the pile of
email he has on this topic, we can get to work on publishing those
documents I've been talking about.
Ann
At 02:33 PM 8/18/2002 -0700, Ann Navarro wrote:
>At 01:09 PM 8/18/2002 -0400, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>>At 10:13 AM -0700 8/18/02, Ann Navarro wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Funny thing about the three-namespaces battle is that another WG (SVG?)
>>>went off and did what we proposed back then, and either a) nobody
>>>noticed, or b) nobody complained.
>>
>>Really? Where? I just checked and SVG 1.0, SVG 1.1, SVG Tiny, and SVG
>>Mobile all seem to be using the same namesapce: http://www.w3.org/2000/svg
>
>The question mark in (SVG?) was that I wasn't positive it was them, I'll
>dig around as a have time to find the Rec in which this came up.
>
>Ann
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
