- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 05:55:35 -0400 (EDT)
- To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- cc: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, WAI Cross-group list <wai-xtech@w3.org>
One of the arguments for xlink in the first place is that there are lots of people who want to be able to make links (the bit that makes the Web different to a collection of documents). If people cannot understand every XML language and all its implications, then being able to understand links in detail might be helpful - you don't really know the meaning of the things in the page, but you know this one points to another page, and there are some words around it that sort of make sense. Navigating blind is a step forward from not being able to navigate at all - eventually you can build up a map that helps to interpret things in it. Chaals On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, William Loughborough wrote: >At 05:11 AM 9/3/2002 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >>what can't be done with Xlink, or is much harder with Xlink? > >Getting it widely understood/accepted/used? > >The transformation of inertia into momentum is often tedious and as our WGs >"mature" they become stodgier. HTML's is hanging on for dear life, >threatened by becoming obsolete since it's just a tiny special niche of XML. > >-- >Love. > >It's Bad Luck to be Superstitious! > -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles tel: +61 409 134 136 SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe ------------ WAI http://www.w3.org/WAI 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia fax(fr): +33 4 92 38 78 22 W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Friday, 6 September 2002 05:55:37 UTC