Re: [Minutes] 24-25 Sep TAG ftf meeting

At 04:37 PM 10/2/2002 -0400, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:

You came so close to actually addressing the issues, or at least 
understanding them, but then no:



>Issue xlinkScope-23: What is the scope of using XLink?
>

>    TB: The XLink WG had this in their charter and
>    didn't deliver on this.But the xlink wg wasn't
>    convinced of the benefits.
>    DC: But it was in the xlink wg charter.
>    TB: We didn't deliver on it, but not through
>    oversight. We didn't want to recreate
>    architectural forms. You had attributes on
>    attributes....

This is why you get continued pushback about history. It was in the 
charter. You chose to not deal with it because you don't like architectural 
forms. That's not, IMO, a legitimate reason for failing to conform with 
your charter. This isn't crying over spilt milk, it's the path that lead us 
to our current dilemmas.

>    TBL: We could ask HTML WG to reformulate HLink
>    in terms of XLink.

The point was that we don't believe it's possible, in a manner that is 
acceptable web page authoring syntax.


>    PC: We should ensure when our issues are tied
>    to documents (and their schedules). The xlink
>    wg was originally asked to map its work back
>    onto html. I think we need to make a strong
>    statement about whether we think these two
>    technologies should evolve in parallel, to see
>    which one wins.
>    DO: Design goal of xlink was 'link detection
>    at run-time'. Another way to do this is at
>    schema evaluation time. "Design time v. run
>    time". Maybe both needs exist (HLink
>    requirements might be addressed with
>    design-time solution). Maybe this is a case
>    where "only one solution" is not applicable.

Paul and David make valid observations here: the market may need to choose, 
and it may choose both.


>    DC: Two points:
>
>   1. I was disappointed when xlink came out that
>      they didn't bother to make the html syntax
>      workable. But that time has mostly passed.

That we're discussing it still now tells me the time has not mostly passed.


>   2. Since yesterday, this has appeared to me as
>      a marketing issue. XLink seems to be a
>      solution to 80% of user issues. Should the
>      TAG do some marketing here?

It's not a marketing issue if the 20% that doesn't find it to be a solution 
incorporates the Web page authoring community (which would make it a 
majority, not 20%, but that's another sinkhole).


>[DanC]
>    "XLink must support HTML 4.0 linking
>    constructs." --
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/NOTE-xlink-req-19990
>    224/
>
>[IanVanc]
>    TB: Writing a change to xlink to add some more
>    markup to the xlink namespace to do the
>    hlink-style attribute remapping; with a
>    statement that this should only be used for
>    backwards compatibility. But I think the HTML
>    WG would not want xlink namespaces in their
>    html.

It's probably fair to say there's differing opinions on that. I also think 
it's fair to say that a solution would not be dismissed out of hand simply 
because there's an xlink namespace involved.



>    RF: There's still a missing bit of xlink that
>    doesn't adapt to existing grammars.The missing
>    bit: if you have an existing grammar with
>    defined attributes that refer to hypertext
>    link relationships, there's no way to say in
>    xlink "By the way, this attribute is a link".

Yes, this is part of our continued problem. It's something that should be 
addressed, not just for HTML, but for other existing grammars.


>    NW: Even if xlink provided that feature, you'd
>    still have to revise the DTD/schema.
>    TBL: But you wouldn't have to change the
>    instances. You would retroactively change the
>    schema. Yes, I would change the schema without
>    changing the instance.

I would be very happy to make changes in the DTD/schema if it saves the 
instance. One bit of work vs. millions.



>    TB: So HTML WG SHOULD use XLink for XHTML 2.0
>    unless there is substantial technical reason
>    why not.

That certainly doesn't seem to follow given the understanding of the issues 
expressed above, unless it was decision made through exhausted 
attrition?  Only one individual seemed to be asserting this position 
strongly throughout.

Ann

-----
Ann Navarro, WebGeek, Inc.
http://www.webgeek.com

say what? http://www.snorf.net/blog

Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2002 17:08:44 UTC