W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: HTML WG last call comment on http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-webarch-20040816/

From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:20:54 +0100
Message-ID: <417514B6.80204@hp.com>
To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org

Hello Steven,

Thanks  for your earlier response to me.  I took the liberty of 
forwarding to the TAGs member-only list [1].

You indicated the HTML-WGs need to see the proposed wording in context. 
Subsequento our F2F, the relevant section has been updated in our 
current editors draft and is available at [2] .

We believe that the changes are responsive to HTML-WGs comment [3] and 
we would like to know, ASAP , whether the HTML-WG agrees.

Many thanks

Stuart Williams
On behalf of W3C TAG
--
[1] 
http://www.w3.org/mid/8D5B24B83C6A2E4B9E7EE5FA82627DC9396D55@sdcexcea01.emea.cpqcorp.net
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20041014/#xml-links
[3] http://www.w3.org/mid/opse3b6givsmjzpq@viao-1.lan

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, 19 October 2004 13:21:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:37:33 GMT