RE: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links

My recollections of xlink discussions over the past 4 years indicate that
civilized discourse appears fleetingly.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Norman Walsh
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:21 AM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> / Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com> was heard to say:
> | I find it amazing that you'd think we'd be arguing about this for 4
> | years and going to the lengths of creating solutions that
> do work for
> | us if it were only about a single attribute being colonized.
>
> I asked a simple question. Politely I thought. Is it impossible to
> have civilized discourse about this subject?
>
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
>
> - --
> Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM    | One should always be a little
> XML Standards Architect | improbable.--Oscar Wilde
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.  |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7
> <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
>
> iD8DBQE9mx0JOyltUcwYWjsRAsIcAJ90uBb7QH8AthfNve2IO0fHoIaQCgCffDMD
> zfqlpc3KT1ER5o+5peqL2Dw=
> =tkvu
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>