[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Tim Bray writes:
> Hmm, clearly nobody would argue that *all* aspects of HTML practice
> are just fine, or we could shut down and go home. As I understand
> it, the HTML WG is mandated with finding ways to improve existing Web
> practice.
Certainly - but I think the HTML WG would prefer to do that within the
context of HTML practice rather than "what's good for XML must be good
for HTML."
> The argument is over the technical details of how we do
> this.
I wish it was that simple; I don't believe that it is.
> My position is that to the extent that documents can be
> self-describing, you win. I certainly don't deny that there's a cost
> in verbosity and that the trade-off is not obvious. -Tim
HTML documents are pretty well described. I'm not sure that adding
XLink to them improves the quality of the description in any substantial
way, except perhaps to those rare people whose only comprehension of
hypertext markup is through XLink.
-------------
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
|
