W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > February 1997

Re: xlink, not multilink or xml-link

From: Jon Bosak <bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:22:52 -0800
Message-Id: <199702241822.KAA20683@boethius.eng.sun.com>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
CC: bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM
[Tim Bray:]

| At 11:07 AM 2/24/97 -0500, Sam Hunting wrote:
| >> >Why not just "xlink"? 
| > As Jon points out, it needs to begin with "XML-"
| 
| Irrelevant; xlink still works.  It's going to have to be XML-something;
| the spec currently uses XML-MLINK, and in the prose we say multilink.
| So it could be XML-XLINK and "extended link".  I still like it. -T.

Sorry, I thought from the subject line for this thread that "xlink"
was being proposed as an alternative to "xml-link".  Now the proposal
seems to be "xml-xlink" as an alternative to "xml-link", which is a
different matter.

I could go with

   xml-link

for the XML version of a contextual link and 

   xml-xlink

for the XML version of an independent link.  "Extended link" works for
me, too, and I like the opposition of (plain old) link (like the kind
you're already used to from HTML, only better) vs. xlink.

Jon
Received on Monday, 24 February 1997 13:23:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:25:08 UTC