- From: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:16:27 -0700
- To: "'Didier PH Martin'" <martind@netfolder.com>, "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Didier replied: >it seems that Micah says that the xlinks extended do need the >arc defined. Hi Didier, Tiny point--Extended XLinks don't generally "need" arcs defined--they are perfectly valid without any arc-type elements. But to omit them changes the structure of the link and thus compromises the expressive power of XLink. Likewise for omitting the xlink:type="resource" element. In other words, my position is that rather than defining prose "shortcuts" around or on top of inconvenient parts of XLink 1.0, it's better to just make the needed (hopefully minor) changes to XLink. >maybe a minor modification can be brought to the xlink specs to remove >this constraint. I am optimistic. Certainly these discussions are proving productive. Thanks, .micah
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 18:16:36 UTC