Re: XLink conformance criteria question

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Anne van Kesteren writes:

> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:20:31 +0100, Norman Walsh
> <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>  wrote:
>> I wish I'd been able to better understand in what way you think
>> they're incompatible given that SVG uses XLink.
>
> The problem is that you can't implement XLink once and be done with
> it.  You actually have to implement it several times, in different
> ways, for  each namespace you support. This clearly makes it quite a
> useless  "generic" technology. This has been pointed out several times
> over the  past few years. It's quite disappointing that one of the
> editors still  fails to see the problem while most (browser vendor)
> implementors indicate  there is one.

OK, so if you have the patience, one more time for the slow-witted:
is this an XLink problem or an SVG problem?  Boris's subsequent email
suggests it's an SVG problem.  In what way could XLink change to
ameliorate the problem?

Thanks,

ht
- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF+Rf1kjnJixAXWBoRAkNyAJ9DwTYZtMGJ4oZs/7eiz8uFROU8lACfUY7/
/32a7DK2BwVeP615h5wQI8I=
=qYKs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Thursday, 15 March 2007 09:55:28 UTC