Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Norm Walsh writes: > Given the recent discussion of XLink and HLink and given that the > specific example here is href, I get the distinct impression that you > feel as if someone is trying to force the whole world to use a > specific set of semantics. > > I don't think your impression is justified by the facts. It seemed very clear from your initial posting on www-tag that the TAG was much more interested in forcing XHTML to use the "generic" XLink than in whether those semantics were appropriate to XHTML. At least, that's the impression I get from: > Recently, the TAG considered the scope of XLink[1]. We concluded[2] > that XLink should be used for hypertext references in user-interface > oriented applications. > > In light of this conclusion, it is the unanimous opinion of the TAG > that XLink should be used for hypertext references in XHTML 2.0. We > note in particular that: > > * The charter of XHTML 2.0 includes the "design goal is to use generic > XML technologies as much as possible". XLink is an existing, generic > XML technology. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0183.html It is entirely possible that I have forgotten how to read, but I'm afraid I feel quite firmly that my impression is justified by certain recent publications, factual or not. ------------- Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA http://simonstl.com may be my URI http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
|
