Re: xlink, not multilink or xml-link
> At 09:59 PM 2/23/97 -0500, Sam Hunting wrote:
> >Why not just "xlink"? The initial "x" suggests:
> ... not to mention "Extensible". Yes! The collective thought
> process gives birth to another winner. Sign me up for xlink. -T.
As Jon points out, it needs to begin with "XML-", being reserved. Sorry
-- newbie mistake.
However, for the pure sizzle, I'd think of changing the convention ....
"xml-" anything doesn't exactly come trippingly off the tongue.
Anyhow, if in newbie fashion I'm reopoening a can of worms,feel free to