|
|
Re: [xml-dev] linking, 80/20
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In a message dated 19/08/2002 13:43:38 GMT Daylight Time, ann@webgeek.com writes:
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.
Ann,
I would ask you to consider the possibility that you are stretching the truth a little here in looking for a historical precedent. The SMIL 2.0 spec had already reached PR stage before XLink 1.0 had gone to REC.
Also Chapter 6.2.2 of the SMIL 2.0 REC mentions that the linking syntax chosen "makes it easier for SMIL code to be processed into and recognized as XLink code once XLink is released as a recommendation and when the appropriate transform mechanisms become available. ".
It seems to me that SMIL 2.0 was explicitly anticipating an XLink-orientated future.
Andrew Watt
|
|
|
|
|
|