RE: comments on 21-February-2000 XLink WD

Sorry. I had a printout of a 10-Jan-2000 draft with written comments on it
and was looking through the new one to see how many of my comments were
still applicable, and I guess I got confused. 

>1.
>I believe we've also now removed all uses of XLink as a noun.

It's still in the second paragraph of 3.1, which is the only place I ever
saw it. 

>2.
>So it's "make recognizable."  Perhaps the heavy noun phrase at the end 
>could be moved up: "Document creators can use the XLink global attributes 
>to make recognizable as XLink elements the elements in their own namespace,

>or even in a namespace they don't control."  What do you think?

That looks better, although I should have noticed "recognizable" originally.

>3.
"conceptually a subset of extended links...syntactically different." That
nails it. 

Again, I apologize for not paying closer attention when checking last
month's notes against this month's draft.

Bob DuCharme          www.snee.com/bob           <bob@  
snee.com>  "The elements be kind to thee, and make thy
spirits all of comfort!" Anthony and Cleopatra, III ii