[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
AndrewWatt2000@aol.com scripsit:
> So what does that mean for the future development of linking technologies at
> W3C?
It means that XLink is defined and XPointer is going to be defined and that's
it, unless the W3C membership decide there's a need, in which case a new
WG will be chartered or an existing WG will have its charter extended.
> Is HLink now the future? It would be ironic if that proves to be the case,
> after TAG's pronouncement of a few short weeks ago. Is anyone to believe that
> XLink 1.0 is the definitive linking technology, incapable of improvement?
No. You are to believe that the members of the Linking WG are sick of it.
They've been working on XLink and XPointer since 1998, after all. (There
are one or two John-come-latelies, including me, who aren't quite so
burned out.)
> Maybe someone will stumble across the plot and hand it in to a Lost Property
> Office.
Sure. Like IETF, or OASIS, or ECMA, or ISO.
--
If you have ever wondered if you are in hell, John Cowan
it has been said, then you are on a well-traveled http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
road of spiritual inquiry. If you are absolutely http://www.reutershealth.com
sure you are in hell, however, then you must be jcowan@reutershealth.com
on the Cross Bronx Expressway. --Alan Feur, NYTimes, 2002-09-20
|
