[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi
Thanx to Simon who mentioned the fact that SMIL 2.0 does not support
Xlink.
So the update count about the Byzantine Schism is:
a) using Xlink or allowing its uses as defined in the specs: 2 (SVG,
MathML)
b) not using it: 3 (XHTML, XForm, SMIL)
Note: The whole issues here is to resolve the issue once and for all
about the theory that a generic linking syntax could be integrated in
W3C domain languages. If a single organization like W3C cannot be
consistent and coherent where XML will go? We can protest that XML
became too complex but it remains that with or without protests, W3C is
pursuing its quest of publishing new specs. Either xlink has to be fixed
or W3C can recognize that the theory has flaws and that this is why some
specs are not supporting the thesis of a generic linking syntax. This
issue is important in the context of architectural constraints applied
to the domain languages produced by W3C. Even if the XML framework is
becoming too complex, if at least it could be coherent and consistent.
In other words are the W3C specs based on architectural principles or
are simply a federation of divergent interest groups. Linking is the
foundation of the web, it deserve some attention doesn't it.
Cheers
Didier PH Martin
|
