RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 6:33 PM
> To: Champion, Mike; WWW-Tag
> Subject: RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry)
> 
> 
> It's always interesting to see how people ignore Occam's Razor when it
> comes to Microsoft and see every action the company takes as either to
> result of some conspiracy or part of some grand vision. 

Pardon ME for being unclear!  I was trying to make the point that the
simplest explanation for IE not supporting XLink is that perfectly sensible
people at Microsoft looked at the spec and decided it didn't add enough
value for their customers (and by implication, themselves, in the long run).


So yes, I believe that applying Occam's Razor to the question yields "we
don't support it because the gain doesn't outweigh the pain."  I was merely
disagreeing with Tim (noted wielder of Occam's Razor that he is!) when he
implied that it was a matter of resource constraints.  I don't think Rev.
Occam could mediate this honest disagreement between disciples :-).  He
WOULD of course disagree with an analysis that posited all sorts of evil
plots to implement a grand vision.

So, I would love to hear an authoritative statement from MS (or anyone else)
on why they are NOT implementing XLink, because that would shed light on the
issue of whether XTHML should be more strongly encouraged to support it.  In
other words, do people who, like Tim, take a close and unbiased look at it
tend to think positively of it, or do they tend to conclude what the XHTML
people have concluded?

Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 18:51:56 UTC