Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> In other words, a fine topic for gnashing until next Christmas. Yes! I've already been firmly gnashed on this topic, which I could never understand, but I'm ready for a calmer discussion about it. Hopefully, xml-dev will be a bit more open about it... > Why was the section on XLinks not done? Note that a lot of it is incomplete. I don't know Rick means about the "XHTML XLink module", because as far as I'm concened, there isn't an XLink module in XHTML 1.1/m12n. But never mind... Rick can write one, and then we'll have XLink in XHTML, so don't let on to him :-) Actually, I think we should all give Rick a big round of applause for a valiant first effort... it isn't easy as I know (I modularized a version of XHTML Basic using similar principles when the argument came round the first time). And I only did it for Basic, Rick is doing it for the whole lot of m12n (I presume). I'm still disappointed that he spells XHTML wrongly in the title :-) Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer http://infomesh.net/sbp/ http://www.w3.org/WAI/ [ERT/GL/PF] "Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics." - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.
|
