>  There are a few pieces of the old XLink drafts that help explain current
>  arguments, most of which were (I think) put aside in a mad rush to
>  namespaces as the solution to all such problems.
>  
>  Unfortunately, the publicly available requirements and goals for XLink
>  all appear to be post-namespaces.

Thanks for the history.  It's a fun read.  I was hoping that it would shed 
some light on the technical problems the XHTML folks encountered in trying to 
use XLink.  IOW, they don't really help explain current arguments to me.  And 
why in particular do you think namespaces are a problem in XLink?  The only 
point I've heard from the XHTML folks so far wrt XMLNS are that the XLink 
namespace is extra to type.  Surely this isn't what you mean?


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                                    Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net    http://4Suite.org    http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
Basic XML and RDF techniques for knowledge management, Part 7 - 
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think12.html
Keeping pace with James Clark - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/libra
ry/x-jclark.html
Python and XML development using 4Suite, Part 3: 4RDF - 
http://www-105.ibm.com/developerworks/education.nsf/xml-onlinecourse-bytitle/8A
1EA5A2CF4621C386256BBB006F4CEC



-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org> , an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> 

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>