Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Yikes. Sorry to hear about the mishap. Being about 90 miles south of Nashville, if it is ice related, I understand. We've had a cold cold winter. I hope that goes well. I don't quite understand the rest of it. Maybe some of these issues can be exposed and help obtained from XML-Dev by discussing them in the context of Rick's draft paper. There are certainly some experienced eyeballs out here and discussing the draft let's those who must respect W3C confidentiality rules do both. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Ann Navarro [mailto:ann@w...] At 03:14 PM 1/4/01 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >Wouldn't an XLink module be a good thing to have? Now there's another hairball. A newly published document (that I haven't had time to read, unfortunately we had a family mishap over the New Year's holiday, and I've been in Nashville dealing with it until this morning) -- XHTML has had constraints from WAI regarding multiple attributes of type URI, which XLink hasn't allowed -- this is now supposed to be allowed, or there's some assertion that XHTML doesn't have to do linking that way, but the jury would certainly be out for a long session on that idea.
|
