- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:55:59 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Tim Bray forwards: -------------------------------- Didier replies: Thanx David for the info. Now the updated count about the W3C Byzantine Schism is: a) using Xlink or allowing its uses as defined in the specs: 2 (SVG, MathML) b) not using it: 2 (XHTML, XForm) --------------------------------- Add SMIL 2.0 to the (b) category. --------------------------------- Where possible, SMIL linking constructs have the same element, attribute and value names as constructs from XLink [XLINK]. This makes it easier to learn to write linking in code in both formats: authors familiar with XLink can more quickly learn SMIL linking, and vice versa. It also makes it easier for SMIL code to be processed into and recognized as XLink code once XLink is released as a recommendation and when the appropriate transform mechanisms become available. However, the SMIL linking attributes are distinct from the XLink constructs and are part of a separate namespace. Using SMIL's modularization mechanism, these constructs are not in the XLink namespace but in the namespaces defined in the SMIL 2.0 specification. <http://www.w3.org/TR/smil20/extended-linking.html#SMILLinking- Relationship-to-XLink> -------------------------------- I'll admit that I'm having a hard time understanding the battle. XLink's interesting and occasionally useful, but I hardly think it's worth inflicting on every XML spec that happens to need hypertext linking. ------------- Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA http://simonstl.com may be my URI http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
Received on Friday, 30 August 2002 14:56:01 UTC