[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Uche Ogbugi wrote:
>The HTML WG is contradicting itself.
>You seem to be claiming that you have no mandate to develop an AF-like
>solution.
I'm not seeing any contradictions.
The HTML WG mandate, to quote from the charter [1] is exactly:
"Develop solutions for linking in the XHTML Family."
On the other hand, the Linking charter [2] expires at the end of 2002, and
states
"the working group does not expect to ask for another extension: further
work in this area beyond the requested duration will likely require either a
newly chartered working group or transfer of responsibilities to other
working groups"
So it seems that for the time being, we're stuck with two different
approaches. Either a newly chartered group or the "transfer responsibilities
to other working groups" part seems promising, but I still feel like I
haven't heard both sides of the story.
[In particular, after the linking folks reaching consensus on requirement
B.2 [3], I'm curious about what kind of difficulties led to the seeming lack
of consensus on meeting that requirement. If sharp rocks are hidden in those
waters, we're all better off knowing about them.]
Thanks,
.micah
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/05/html/charter
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/12/xmlbp/xml-linking-wg-charter.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-xlink-req/#syntax
-----Original Message-----
From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 7:55 PM
To: Ann Navarro
Cc: Arjun Ray; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration
languages]
> At 09:35 PM 9/13/2002 +0000, Arjun Ray wrote:
> >Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com> wrote:
> >
> >| The point of the message is the linking examples, not an ideological
> >| argument about application construction.
> >
> >The lesson from the message is that namespaces and colonification are
> >
> > *** *B* *R* *O* *K* *E* *N* ***
> >
> >The pope and his nuncio, of course, aren't listening. And so WGs are
> >caught in the toils of a disaster not of their own making.
>
>
> Exactly.
>
> We're rowing with the oars that we have. Until decisions are made to fix
> other things, we have no choice but to keep toiling. See TAG and
Namespaces
> 1.1 Last Call to fix that situation.
The HTML WG is contradicting itself.
You seem to be claiming that you have no mandate to develop an AF-like
solution.
If so, how is it that you have a mandate to create something with as much
wheel-reinvention as HLink?
As I see it, if you are authorized to develop HLink, then you are authorized
to develop it rightly.
--
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 -
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think12.html
Keeping pace with James Clark -
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/libra
ry/x-jclark.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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>
|
