- From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:20:54 +0100
- To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
Hello Steven, Thanks for your earlier response to me. I took the liberty of forwarding to the TAGs member-only list [1]. You indicated the HTML-WGs need to see the proposed wording in context. Subsequento our F2F, the relevant section has been updated in our current editors draft and is available at [2] . We believe that the changes are responsive to HTML-WGs comment [3] and we would like to know, ASAP , whether the HTML-WG agrees. Many thanks Stuart Williams On behalf of W3C TAG -- [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/8D5B24B83C6A2E4B9E7EE5FA82627DC9396D55@sdcexcea01.emea.cpqcorp.net [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20041014/#xml-links [3] http://www.w3.org/mid/opse3b6givsmjzpq@viao-1.lan Steven Pemberton wrote: > > (Apologies for lateness, due to laptop meltdown and concomitant backlog) > > The HTML WG has one comment on the architecture last call: > > "XLink is an appropriate specification for representing links in > hypertext XML applications." > > We demur. XLink was issued without reaching consensus, and did not > follow due W3C process. This makes it an inappropriate specification > for underpinning the Web architecture until such time as consensus > has been achieved. > > Best wishes, > > Steven Pemberton > For the HTML WG >
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2004 13:21:03 UTC