- From: Mike Champion <mc@xegesis.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:57:24 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-tag@w3.org
>that would have been less controversial might have run as follows: > the sense of the TAG is that we are not convinced by the XHTML > critique of the implications of XLink, and wanted to get our > tentative conclusion that HLink was the wrong way to go on the > record" Couldn't have said it better myself :-) So, assuming that this is/was the TAG's intention, how do we move forward to resolve the technical issues dividing the XHTML and XLink representatives? I don't recall seeing an analysis by a TAG member of what they don't like about HLink, other than that it is not XLink (a Recommendation). http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0126.html rasies a number of questions, some of which (mostly editorial or procedural) were answered. My impression from the (unpublished) IRC log is that the TAG had stronger objections than they have explained in public. Maybe they should explain. I *hope* it's not just the smell of SGML architectural forms that is the technical objection. So, I'm curious: Given that the objective is to have ONE XML linking spec rather than XLink + HLink, and given that there are many objections (some perhaps based on extra-technical factors, I don't know), and given that the AC vote on XLink suggested that the issues be revisited by a newly chartered WG, is that a possible way forward? Accept that for good reasons or bad, XLink 1.0 is not a suitable basis for XHTML 2.0, but perhaps XLink 2.0 could be? Accept that HLink is not acceptable in its current form, but perhaps some refactoring of XLink and HLink into XLink 2.0 could give us the best of both worlds? In my humble and personal opinion, given that the world has not rushed to implement XLink nor is it clamoring for XHTML 2, there's time to step back, reconsider all assumptions, and maybe get both right next time.
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 15:00:52 UTC