• To: "'Thomas B. Passin'" <tpassin@c...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
• From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>
• Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 08:13:35 -0400
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <016401c25e0e$f48316a0$fe193044@tbp1>

Hi Thomas,

Thomas said:
If we cannot get to a **really simple** syntax to express these notions,
one
that will be clear to most non-specialists and non-nerd html authors, we
better forget it right now.  And it should have few options and no
interactions between parts.  I know that this does not sound like a
general
replacement for xlink, but I think it is what is needed for xhtml.

Does anyone else think like this, or is it just me?

Didier replies:
Totally agree with this Thomas.

Cheers
Didier PH Martin

• References:
  • Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Don't Let Architecture Astronauts Scare You
• Next by Date: Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
• Previous by thread: Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
• Next by thread: Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration languages]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread