Lists Home |
Date Index |
Norm Walsh writes:
> Given the recent discussion of XLink and HLink and given that the
> specific example here is href, I get the distinct impression that you
> feel as if someone is trying to force the whole world to use a
> specific set of semantics.
> I don't think your impression is justified by the facts.
It seemed very clear from your initial posting on www-tag that the TAG
was much more interested in forcing XHTML to use the "generic" XLink
than in whether those semantics were appropriate to XHTML. At least,
that's the impression I get from:
> Recently, the TAG considered the scope of XLink. We concluded
> that XLink should be used for hypertext references in user-interface
> oriented applications.
> In light of this conclusion, it is the unanimous opinion of the TAG
> that XLink should be used for hypertext references in XHTML 2.0. We
> note in particular that:
> * The charter of XHTML 2.0 includes the "design goal is to use generic
> XML technologies as much as possible". XLink is an existing, generic
> XML technology.
It is entirely possible that I have forgotten how to read, but I'm
afraid I feel quite firmly that my impression is justified by certain
recent publications, factual or not.
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:184.108.40.206.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether