• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:08:35 -0500

David Carver wrote:
> That is up to the implementors, and I suspect they could use the IRI 
> support.

It's still not clear to me that the IRI support does anything but 
explicitly require something that was possible before.

> The point being is that standards no matter how small and how much of 
> niche serve their purpose, and they do need to be updated from time to 
> time.  Maybe it isn't fitting your use case or your particular interest, 
> but I'm for one am glad to see the specs getting attention.  If nothing 
> else it brings them up to date with the needs now by some in the 
> community that need them.

I guess that means we'll eventually be seeing updates of a wide variety 
of specs that see relatively little use.  That's not all bad.  In the 
case of XLink, though, it really highlighted for me that even a spec 
that utterly failed to build a community is still sort of somehow 
marching along.

Perhaps XPointer 1.1 is next.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: xlink 1.1
    • From: rjelliffe@a...
  • Re: xlink 1.1
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: xlink 1.1
    • From: David Carver <d_a_carver@y...>

• References:
  • Re: xlink 1.1
    • From: David Carver <d_a_carver@y...>
  • Re: xlink 1.1
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: xlink 1.1
    • From: David Carver <d_a_carver@y...>