> Between XML.com's report
> (http://www.xml.com/xml/pub/98/10/xmlgroups.html) and the XML
> Activity statement at the W3C (http://www.w3.org/XML/Activity.html)
> I feel like I have a decent grasp of where the W3C is headed with
> XML - better, at least, than I've had in a while.
Good -- it's a big reorganisation, and it had to be approved by the
membership first, so it took a while for the W3C to be in a position
to announce anything.
> Two big questions, however:
>
> 1) I don't see where namespaces are listed as any of these groups'
> work, though the activity statement still mentions them as W3C
> work.
Like that doll in the horror movies (what's its name?), namespaces
won't go away. Sorry to be coy, but stay tuned...
> 2) Is the Fragment Working Group the descendant of XPointer, or
> something else? XPointer started out with XLink, but seems to be
> migrating further and further away from its origins.
It's something else.
XPointer and XLink both belong to the XML Linking WG. Think of the
XML Fragment WG as dealing with cut-and-paste (apologies to Paul
Grosso for the disgusting over-simplification).
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson david@megginson.com
http://www.megginson.com/