In a message dated 10/08/2002 22:55:29 GMT Daylight Time, mimasa@[...].org 
writes:


>  > However, it did seem to me that at least one point he raises may be a red 
>  > herring. He comments that "it was too clumsy to use a different 
>  namespace" 
>  
>  It was Tim Berners-Lee who put it that way:
>  
>      http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/XLink
>  
>  and the HTML WG felt it's utterly misrepresenting the whole argument,
>  that's why he sent a response.  It's not fair to attribute that
>  sentence to Steven.

Hi,

You are correct. I misquoted. Sorry.

I still think it would be very useful to have a clear, public indication of 
what the HTML WG's concerns are about XLink.

Ann has indicated that she may try to summarise those early in the coming 
week. Can you summarise the main points of, presumably technical, concern of 
which you are aware?

Does Steven Pemberton's email 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jul/0158.html) fully 
summarise the HTML WG's concerns? Or are there other substantive issues? He 
says there are "many" causes for concern. Can you list those?

Simon has indicated (rightly or wrongly) that the HTML WG is "angry" about 
XLink. Are the WG's continuing concerns a reflection of emotion/frustration 
or are there weighty technical issues which are insuperable?

BTW ... and this is just my curiosity ... why hasn't the HTML WG updated its 
name to reflect its current (and recent) role?

Andrew Watt