- From: Jon Bosak <bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:22:52 -0800
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
- CC: bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM
[Tim Bray:] | At 11:07 AM 2/24/97 -0500, Sam Hunting wrote: | >> >Why not just "xlink"? | > As Jon points out, it needs to begin with "XML-" | | Irrelevant; xlink still works. It's going to have to be XML-something; | the spec currently uses XML-MLINK, and in the prose we say multilink. | So it could be XML-XLINK and "extended link". I still like it. -T. Sorry, I thought from the subject line for this thread that "xlink" was being proposed as an alternative to "xml-link". Now the proposal seems to be "xml-xlink" as an alternative to "xml-link", which is a different matter. I could go with xml-link for the XML version of a contextual link and xml-xlink for the XML version of an independent link. "Extended link" works for me, too, and I like the opposition of (plain old) link (like the kind you're already used to from HTML, only better) vs. xlink. Jon
Received on Monday, 24 February 1997 13:23:00 UTC