Re: More on xlink-23

In a message dated 30/08/2002 19:57:01 GMT Daylight Time, 
simonstl@simonstl.com writes:


> Tim Bray forwards:
> --------------------------------
> Didier replies:
> Thanx David for the info. Now the updated count about the W3C Byzantine
> Schism is:
> a) using Xlink or allowing its uses as defined in the specs: 2 (SVG,
> MathML)
> b) not using it: 2 (XHTML, XForm)
> ---------------------------------
> 
> Add SMIL 2.0 to the (b) category.

You can also add XSL-FO to (b), I think.


> I'll admit that I'm having a hard time understanding the battle.
> XLink's interesting and occasionally useful, but I hardly think it's
> worth inflicting on every XML spec that happens to need hypertext
> linking.
> 

I increasingly suspect that there are specific lingering issues between the 
XLink WG and the HTML WG.

But the XLink issue, at least as I see it, isn't primarily about XLink. It's 
at least as importantly about the XML strategy at W3C - or the lack of such a 
strategy.

I have just sent a post entitled "Is the W3C Losing the Plot?" to XML-Dev. 
The post is more reflective than its title may suggest but tries to express 
an unease about the lack (at least as I see it) of a clearly communicated 
direction at the W3C for XML.

Answering the question about XLink without more explicitly teasing out and 
addressing the broader issues about the strategy for XML seems to me to 
attempt only a part of the necessary task.

Andrew Watt