Re: Suggested alternate wording re XLink

>that would have been less controversial might have run as follows:

> the sense of the TAG is that we are not convinced by the XHTML
>  critique of the implications of XLink, and wanted to get our
>  tentative conclusion that HLink was the wrong way to go on the
>  record"

Couldn't have said it better myself :-)

So, assuming that this is/was the TAG's intention, how do we 
move forward to resolve the technical issues dividing the XHTML
and XLink representatives?  I don't recall seeing an analysis
by a TAG member of what they don't like about HLink, other than
that it is not XLink (a Recommendation).  

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0126.html
rasies a number of questions, some of which (mostly
editorial or procedural) were answered.  My impression from the
(unpublished) IRC log is that the TAG had stronger objections than
they have explained in public.  Maybe they should explain.
I *hope* it's not just the smell of SGML architectural forms
that is the technical objection.

So, I'm curious:  Given that the objective is to have ONE
XML linking spec rather than XLink + HLink, and given that there
are  many objections (some perhaps based on extra-technical 
factors, I don't know), and given that the AC vote on XLink
suggested that the issues be revisited by a newly chartered WG,
is that a possible way forward?  Accept that for good reasons or
bad, XLink 1.0 is not a suitable basis for XHTML 2.0, but perhaps
XLink 2.0 could be?  Accept that HLink is not acceptable in its
current form, but perhaps some refactoring of XLink and HLink
into XLink 2.0 could give us the best of both worlds?  

In my humble and personal opinion, given that the world has not rushed to implement
XLink nor is it clamoring for XHTML 2, there's time to step back, reconsider
all assumptions, and maybe get both right next time.

Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 15:00:52 UTC