- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 22:08:03 +0200
- To: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>, <www-forms@w3.org>, <www-forms-editor@w3.org>, <w3c-forms@w3.org>
From: <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com> > Stephen, Steven > In thinking further about the src attribute on xforms:instance I wonder > whether this is not a "link" but rather should be an include. > > The XInclude REC indicates (presumably normatively) that a difference between > an XLink link with "embed" and an XInclude inclusion is that the latter is > not necessarily rendered. XInclude is not a REC by the way. It is only at CR at the moment. Even worse, it normatively references an out-of-date XPointer.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. (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?) Steven Pemberton Co-chair, W3C Forms working group.
Received on Sunday, 1 September 2002 16:08:30 UTC