- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:41:07 +0200
- To: "Stuart Williams" <skw@hp.com>
- Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
> 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. I am afraid not. They responded very strongly that it is not acceptable to recommend a spec that has not reached consensus within W3C. They object in particular to the wording "[XLink] is an appropriate specification" and "Designers of XML-based formats should consider using XLink". Sorry. Steven Pemberton On behalf of the HTML WG > 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 Wednesday, 20 October 2004 15:42:01 UTC