> ..XLink is not yet really credible 
> because everyone feels they can get away with ignoring it.  The W3C
should > be 
> *making* XLink credible by encouraging its use in specs where
applicable, > and 
> providing advocacy to implementors so we have less of the mess you
point > out.

Okay, if we define credibility as meaning used in specs where linking is
necessary then I agree that it might be nice to have this, and that the
recent XHTML 2.0 draft functions as a declaration of XLink's
non-credibility.

Of course on one level credibility in this way is defined by implementer
support and best-practices, and perhaps the non-credibility of XLink
bubbles up from a mass of individuals who refuse to see it as being
credible. People who are perhaps once bitten twice shy, of which I am
one.





-----------------------------------------------------------------
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>