Lists Home |
Date Index |
> At 09:54 PM 9/13/2002 +0000, Arjun Ray wrote:
> >Ann Navarro <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >| At 04:34 PM 9/13/2002 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> >|> That is a consensus of the uninformed, Ann. [...] The question here is
> >|> simple: are these arc forms renamed and slightly weakened such that
> >|> what we end up with is more complicated and less powerful?
> >| Single word answer (direct from the chair): No.
> >Is the chair sufficiently acquainted, with either ArchForms or the
> >proposals on the now defunct w3c-xml-sig list, to make such a categorical
> >statement? Or is it simply a priori belief?
> Yes, he is -- I think he has sufficiently proven background to make such a
> However, this question seriously misses the point of the HLink exercise --
> which is to get functionality that we require when the technology that was
> created to allegedly do this failed to provide it.
We don't need yet another kludge. Fix it rightly, or use the kludges already
You have XLink. You have RDF. You have CSS. Choosing one of these would at
least have the constructive aspect of technical convergence.
Or, you can actually develop something that addresses the architectural
> Substantive comments on the proposal itself are certainly welcome.
Now you are adopting the same attitude that you have accused the linking
working group of having. I'm sure that when you complained to them about
XLink, they also countered asking for your "substantive" comments about the
You lot really are steaming as fast as possible into the same rocks you first
steered away from, aren't you?
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Apache 2.0 API - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-apache/
Basic XML and RDF techniques for knowledge management, Part 7 -
Keeping pace with James Clark - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/libra