- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:42:09 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Andrew Watt writes: > But the XLink issue, at least as I see it, isn't primarily about > XLink. It's at least as importantly about the XML strategy at W3C - > or the lack of such a strategy. And references: http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/xml-dev/1342613 I think that at this point there are a number of us who are much happier to see the W3C without an "XML strategy", arguing that pretty much everything that the W3C has done to XML apart from XML 1.0 and (most of) XSLT 1.0 has been counter-productive at best, with Namespaces in XML, W3C XML Schema, and XLink leading the charge, not to mention the current hideous mash of XSLT 2.0/XPath 2.0/XQuery. Perhaps it's time to simply shut down the XML-specific working groups, and focus more exclusively on the specific vocabularies - thereby letting the vocabularies flourish instead of insisting that they use a particular toolbox that seems to do little to enhance their value. XML's here to stay, no question. Beyond that? Maybe the W3C would do better to worry less. ------------- 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 15:42:11 UTC