• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>,'Arjun Ray' <aray@n...>,xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
• From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:32:44 -0400
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B949@HQ5>

At 04:19 PM 9/13/2002 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>I read this earlier and almost responded; it appears
>the WG is attemping a weak version of architectural
>forms.
>
>Is this another case of changing the names and adopting
>a piece of another technology (namespaces) that makes
>the result more complicated than the original and
>ends up being less powerful?

No, see XHTML Modularization conformance definitions, 
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/conformance.html#s_conform . 
These terms have been around for several years now (without argument from 
the community).

The point of the message is the linking examples, not an ideological 
argument about application construction.

Ann

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>

• References:
  • RE: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration languages]
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Renamer-Att Again (was: Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration languages]
• Next by Date: RE: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
• Previous by thread: RE: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration languages]
• Next by thread: Re: [Fwd: The problems with Xlink for integration langu ages]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread