Re: TAG Comments on XHTML 2.0 and HLink

I guess I would recommend that you read Steven Pemberton's message at - I think it
presents the argument pretty clearly.

Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

> At 9:20 AM -0500 9/26/02, Shane McCarron wrote:
> >[Speaking as the principal editor on XHTML 2.0 and other XHTML
> >specifications]
> >
> >The HTML Working Group has demonstrated that XLink is manifestly
> >inadequate for the needs of the community we are trying to serve.
> No, you have not. I've read your documents, and I'm not convinced.
> Perhaps you have a good and valid point, but if so you haven't made
> it convincingly yet. Perhaps you can make your argument more
> persuasively than you have to date.
> >Our constituents, the millions of people who author and maintain web
> >pages,
> >cannot be expected to throw out their knowledge base that is HTML 4 and
> >XHTML 1.
> This is the least convincing part of your argument. XHTML 2.0 asks
> page authors to do exactly that. It is backwards incompatible with
> HTML. Why you think linking must be compatible when frames, images,
> and more aren't, I just don't understand. If backwards compatibility
> were an explicit goal of XHTML 2, then I could see your point.
> >Nor can they be required to use a bunch of arcane attributes
> >on every linking element just because there is some approved W3C
> >Recommendation that is sort of in this space that _could_ be used.
> >(Note: I am fully aware that XHTML 2.0 is not fully backward compatible
> >with XHTML 1.1.  However, the HTML Working Group follows "the principle
> >of least surprise" with our evolution of HTML, and breaking every link
> >in
> >every document as people were trying to migrate them to XHTML 2.0 would
> >be very surprising indeed.)
> I am not convinced it is necessary to "use a bunch of arcane attributes
> on every linking element". So far, it still seems to me to be
> possible to stick with xlink:href and element/GI defined semantics.
> >XLink has never addressed the requirements of XHTML.  The XLink working
> >group chose to ignore our last call comments, and chose not to support
> >the requirements that were in their own original goals for their
> >recommendation.  The W3C Advisory Committee recognized this two years
> >ago and clearly indicated there should be a more friendly approach to
> >linking semantics that would not require they be explicitly described on
> >every link in every document.
> If you were able to demonstrate a need for these requirements, then
> this point would be relevant. But so far, I am unconvinced that HTML
> needs multiple link attributes on a single start-tag, or that it
> needs them to be named something other than what they are named in
> XLink.
> --
> +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
> | Elliotte Rusty Harold | | Writer/Programmer |
> +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
> |          XML in a  Nutshell, 2nd Edition (O'Reilly, 2002)          |
> |                  |
> |  |
> +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
> |  Read Cafe au Lait for Java News:      |
> |  Read Cafe con Leche for XML News:    |
> +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+

Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet:

Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 11:55:42 UTC