[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com> wrote:
| [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.]
The deliberations of the Linking group are tucked away in the Members Area
of lists.w3.org, so we can only speculate. For instance, "being linking
as opposed to describing it" could be the heart of the matter, in view of
Steven Pemberton's remarks a while back[1]:
: Xlink apparently started off as a link description language [...] However,
: sometime in 1999, Xlink stopped describing linking, and started being it.
: This is a major change, because all of a sudden you are forced to change
: your documents if you want to use Xlink, even though the current Xlink draft
: still claims it is a requirement that documents not need to be changed.
Having met B3 - perhaps with a convenient conflation of "standalone" with
"no markup declarations at all" - B2 may have been seen as moot. Weren't
DTDs so 1980s anyway?
<speculation>
B2 left AF-style methods in play. Uh oh.
</speculation>
|
