• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: TAG on HLink
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 02:14:36 +0000
• In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020927125956.026aeb78@m...>
• References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020927085155.00aca4d8@m...> <5.1.0.14.0.20020926150135.00ac88a8@m...> <Pine.LNX.4.30.0209271134050.7498-100000@g... c.uk> <5.1.0.14.0.20020927085155.00aca4d8@m...> <ql29pu8n9kqclnm1tu70mb82777rolfk8m@4...> <5.1.0.14.0.20020927125956.026aeb78@m...>

Ben Trafford <ben@l...> wrote:
| At 04:52 PM 9/27/2002 +0000, Arjun Ray wrote:

|> It sounds like you're saying that XLink wound up with no (re)mapping
|> mechanism because there was no way found to appease prejudice.  Have I
|> understood this correctly?
| 
| "Prejudice" is a rather strong term. 

Predisposition and closed minds are alternatives.

| It wasn't politically feasible, at the time. And I am not speaking for 
| the rest of XML Linking WG at the time --- I'm speaking as a private 
| individual. 

Sure.  But what would you say were the main political sentiments at that
time?  I don't think anyone was crass enough to tell in you so many words,
"you can't do that", but something in the air made that pretty clear any
way.  What was it? 
 

• References:
  • Re: TAG on HLink
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@l...>
  • Re: TAG on HLink
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@l...>
  • Re: TAG on HLink
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: TAG on HLink
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@l...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping (was Re: TAG on HLink)
• Next by Date: Re: Rethinking namespaces,attribute remapping (was Re: TAG on HLink)
• Previous by thread: Re: TAG on HLink
• Next by thread: RE: TAG on HLink
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread