- From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:15:56 +0100
- To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
Steven, Just to follow-up with two things. Firstly, it would be really useful to us to have a response from the HTML-WG in advance of our telcon on 18th October. Please let me know if the HTML-WG are not going to be able to respond by 18th. Secondly, Dan Connolly has been working on tidying our meeting record and the is a more readable narrative account of the relevant piece of discussion at: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/10/05-07-tag#htxl Best regards Stuart -- Stuart Williams wrote: > > Steven, > > At our F2F meeting yesterday, the TAG discussed [1] the HTML WGs > comment below. The TAG resolved to make the following change around > the reference to the xlinkScope-23 in Section 4.5.2: > > "RESOLVED: add that XLink is not the only linking design that has > been proposed for XML, nor is it universally accepted as a good > design. See also TAG issue xlinkScope-23" > > Please could you indicate whether this adequately addresses the HTML > WG's comment. > > Many thanks, > > Stuart Williams > On behalf of W3C TAG. > -- > [1] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2004Oct/att-0008/mins06.html#item07 > > (then search for "recent comment from HTML WG"). > > > > Steven Pemberton wrote: > >> >> (Apologies for lateness, due to laptop meltdown and concomitant backlog) >> >> The HTML WG has one comment on the architecture last call: >> >> "XLink is an appropriate specification for representing links in >> hypertext XML applications." >> >> We demur. XLink was issued without reaching consensus, and did not >> follow due W3C process. This makes it an inappropriate specification >> for underpinning the Web architecture until such time as consensus >> has been achieved. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Steven Pemberton >> For the HTML WG >> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 10:16:11 UTC