- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 09:51:34 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Tim Bray notes: >Simon St.Laurent wrote: > >> The TAG has already moved that XLink should be the generic linking >> mechanism for XML, despite a wide variety of complaints about its >> appropriateness for various domains. > >This statement is incorrect. To quote from > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0183.html > ========================================== > Recently, the TAG considered the scope of XLink[1]. > We concluded[2] that XLink should be used for hypertext > references in user-interface oriented applications. > > In light of this conclusion, it is the unanimous opinion > of the TAG that XLink should be used for hypertext references > in XHTML 2.0. > =========================================== > >Reasonable people are trying to work in good faith to explore these >issues, and inflammatory overgeneralizations like that quoted above are >not helpful. -Tim Given that my XML work originated from an interest in hypertext and that much of my work since can be interpreted as an effort to get back to hypertext, any conclusion that "XLink should be used for hypertext references in user-interface oriented applications" is itself an inflammatory overgeneralization - at least from my perspective. It is my sincere hope that the continuing non-adoption of XLink will eventually lead to reconsideration of its basic form and its rebuilding on a more useful set of foundations. If the TAG would like to pretend that this sow's ear is really a purse, that is of course the TAG's prerogative. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 09:51:12 UTC