W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2002

Re: More on xlink-23

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:55:59 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <r01050300-1015-1F8EBC46BC4A11D6ADB10003937A08C2@[]>

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,
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. 

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

Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid: is another possibility altogether
Received on Friday, 30 August 2002 14:56:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:33 UTC