Tim Bray writes:
>  That post is from me.  I feel that Simon's characterization of it is 
>  incorrect and unfair,

Uh, Tim?  I was delighted to find your blunt style making the point that
the XLink WG had in fact decided that the XHTML WG's desires were
unimportant enough to be left behind.  I find your recharacterization of
the statement and the situation incorrect.

The XLink WG quite plainly gave up on achieving both its requirements as
originally stated and any effort to mollify the XHTML WG.  Ben Trafford
may claim that "it wasn't for lack of trying," but something plainly
happened - and we're left with an ugly split.  

In my case, the split is between my two primary communities, so what may
seem like ancient history to you is critically important to me.  Fixing
this is going to be damn hard, but papering over a process failure
doesn't seem like a good start.


-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

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