I wouldn't care about having to add the XLink attributes either (I tend 
to do a lot of copy/pasting if I have to use the same tags/attributes 
over and over again); I'm referring to those out there who don't 
understand why HTML is even being converted to XHTML (and there were a 
lot of them in the HTML class I just took) and would definitely balk at 
having to write xlink:type="simple" every time they would have to create 
a link.  That's not even mentioning the number of such websites that 
claim to be XHTML but lack both the XML prolog and the xmlns attribute.  
The former there is a good reason for forgetting, but why forget the latter?

It seems to me there's currently an understanding issue when it comes to 
XML Namespaces.

Oskar Welzl wrote:

>There are various opinions on this topic; me, myself and I all would
>happily add xlink:type="simple" if, in return, we'd get
>xlink:type="extended" and external linkbases. If, in return, we'd use
>standards in XHTML, rather than home-brew proprietary solutions; the
>same standards that are used in Open Document, SVG, XTM, XBRL...
>Maybe it's more verbose than people are used to, maybe extended links
>and external linkbases are more difficult to implement - but: hey, they
>are hoping for UAs to deal with the Metainformation Attributes Module as
>well, aren't they? 
>
>But, as I said earlier: This topic is probably dead as can be, google
>for "xlink xhtml" and you'll find everything has been said and done.
>(I like these hopeless cases, though; anybody for a new "@hreflang in
>XHTML2"-thread? I still believe Anne got it all wrong in
>http://annevankesteren.nl/2004/06/hreflang-and-type  ;-)...)
>
>Oskar
>  
>

-- 
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/  - Get Firefox!
http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/  - Reclaim Your Inbox!

Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html