Re: (my last word on) Permitting non-indirect links
David Durand writes:
I'm done with this thread. I think we don't need additional syntax to
enable the functions you have convinced people would be good; no one else
seems to be listening; we agree on the arguments, and on the issues, but
disagree on the final solution.
I'm listening and I agree with David. Priorities as I see them are
a. provide the ability for it to be possible to create a
well-formed XML instance that can be dealt with by existing HTML
browsers (or with very minor mods to allow browser makers to
claim some degree of XMLness - it may be important
marketing-wise for them to be able to say this);
b. provide the ability for conformant XML instances to use much
more sophisticated facilities, at the penalty that these will
only work with four-wheel browsers.
(I don't happen to believe that we need to provide for badly-formed
At some stage soon we are going to need a lucid and explanatory
middle-ground document which explains what we are doing (and why XML
is A Good Thing) for the consumption of webmasters and webmistresses
who don't have the time or knowledge to go through the spec in detail,
and it should include an even shorter and even less technical summary
for the use of managers who simply want to be persuaded that this is
something they need to ask for.