[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Norm Walsh writes:
> In any event, I think it's quite a leap from "the TAG thinks HTML
> should use XLink" to "the whole world must use XLink (or some other
> technology)"
I'm sorry, but I don't see the distinction, except that XHTML operates
under W3C auspices and is therefore more easily ordered about. The W3C
continuously and unapologetically keeps turning out "XML-whatever"
specifications, promoting this notion of the W3C as keeper of a coherent
"XML family" of specs, and getting rather snippy whenever their
technical judgment or political wisdom is challenged.
(Given how lousy a fit XLink is to what the XHTML WG seems to be trying
to accomplish, the generic-trumps-specific message seems remarkably
plain.)
It's time to get over the notion that a committee of experts can solve
semantic problems for a wide range of problems. It was very nice of the
W3C to provide a home for the simplification of SGML and give us a
useful syntax, but the results since then have been hideous - and in
large part because the world takes the W3C's pretensions seriously.
-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
|
