"Didier PH Martin" <> wrote:
| It would help to understand why xlink is broken.
Xlink itself may or may not be broken. The sanctioned way to use it is
broken.
| Off course, we may not like the namespaces or the way namespaces are
| handled
I believe the critics are in a minority. That's normal with a maguffin as
long as it continues to enchant.
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]
| but it remains that from W3C, as an institution, we expect consistency
| and coherency.
Emerson's aphorism comes to mind.
| The actual problem is that a particular W3C WG says that there are
| some showstoppers with Xlink, a respected member of this WG, Ann
| assured us that we'll have a document stating the reasons why such
| breakdown is happening
I agree, we should wait for this document.
| (and thus invalidating the xlink theory/specifications).
I'm guessing there's nothing particularly wrong with the basic theory.
The problem is in the um, recommended, practice.
