- From: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 06:31:34 EDT
- To: steven.pemberton@cwi.nl, xforms@yahoogroups.com, www-forms@w3.org, www-forms-editor@w3.org, w3c-forms@w3.org
- Message-ID: <a1.2cd1fb6e.2aa49806@aol.com>
I had asked: > > In thinking further about the src attribute on xforms:instance I wonder > > whether this is not a "link" but rather should be an include. Steven Pemberton replied (somewhat snipped): > XInclude is not a REC by the way. It is only at CR at the moment. Correction accepted. Even > > worse, it normatively references an out-of-date XPointer. We are not even > allowed to normatively refer to a specification more than one step behind > us. But that notwithstanding, XInclude would be rather heavyweight for the > role it would have to play, and would be a tough requirement for handheld > devices. Surely the first question to address here is whether or not what is being done is an include or a link? I notice you don't address that question. If the process is an include rather than a link don't you agree that expressing it as a link is a little bit of a kludge? > > (And by the way, XInclude has an href attribute which is also not an > xlink:href, so what would be the win from your point of view? And if it's > OK > for them, why is it not OK for XForms?) Well, if my suggestion is correct, that the process may be an include not a link then there would be no reason to think of XLink in this context. I appreciate that your responses, at this stage, are informal but I would be interested to know if you consider that this is genuinely a "link" with "embed". If it's not then might it not be sensible to revisit the issue? Regards Andrew Watt
Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 06:32:15 UTC