Re: TAG Comments on XHTML 2.0 and HLink

In a message dated 26/09/2002 21:41:33 GMT Daylight Time, 
steven.pemberton@cwi.nl writes:


> > If I remember correctly I asked Steven Pemberton some weeks back on the
> > XForms Editors list to explain more lucidly the anti-XLink perception as
> far
> > as XForms goes. As I recall there followed silence on Steven's part. I
> > assumed, not unreasonably, that the case didn't stack up and that remains
> my
> > working hypothesis.
> 
> Aha! I wondered why you hadn't responded. I assumed I had persuaded you!
> I did indeed reply, but apparently you missed it.
> 
> > If there is a sound technical case to be made lucidly and succinctly for
> the
> > HTML WG's (and XForms WG's) opposition to XLink please feel free to make
> it
> > known.
> 
> See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-forms/2002Sep/0210.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Sep/0108.html

Steven,

Thanks for the pointer. As far as I can see the response to www-forms is 
identical to the www-tag post, except for the title. If I have missed some 
subtle difference in wording feel free to correct me.

I believe others have pointed out to you that assuming xlink:show="embed" is 
likely inappropriate. Certainly in SVG 1.0 the approach was that 
xlink:show="other" on the SVG <svg:script/> element.

Do you accept that embed is inappropriate?

It would be interesting to see a re-write of your case taking that into 
account.

Andrew Watt