Re: TAG Comments on XHTML 2.0 and HLink

In a message dated 26/09/2002 16:02:10 GMT Daylight Time, 
elharo@metalab.unc.edu writes:


> At 9:20 AM -0500 9/26/02, Shane McCarron wrote:
> 
> 
> >[Speaking as the principal editor on XHTML 2.0 and other XHTML
> >specifications]
> >
> >The HTML Working Group has demonstrated that XLink is manifestly
> >inadequate for the needs of the community we are trying to serve.
> 
> No, you have not. I've read your documents, and I'm not convinced. 

Shane,

Please also put me in that camp of the (as yet) unconvinced. 

I believe your Working Group should take a look at making a more convincing 
case, if one exists.

If I remember correctly I asked Steven Pemberton some weeks back on the 
XForms Editors list to explain more lucidly the anti-XLink perception as far 
as XForms goes. As I recall there followed silence on Steven's part. I 
assumed, not unreasonably, that the case didn't stack up and that remains my 
working hypothesis.

If there is a sound technical case to be made lucidly and succinctly for the 
HTML WG's (and XForms WG's) opposition to XLink please feel free to make it 
known.

You also wrote:

> Our constituents, the millions of people who author and maintain web
> pages,
> cannot be expected to throw out their knowledge base that is HTML 4 and
> XHTML 1.  

Are you making a serious suggestion here or is your emotion carrying you 
away? Don't you detect, on reflection, at least a touch of hyperbole or 
melodrama here? :)

Andrew Watt