From: "Andy Switala" <[log in to unmask]> > There's also the issue of why use METS/XLink when > * The schema appears to be fully compliant with W3C/XLink (modulo the > namespace). > * Third party tools, stylesheets, etc. are far more likely to support > W3C/XLink. > Since MODS 3.0 draft is already backwards-incompatible with MODS 2.0 [1], > why not take the opportunity to use a standard linking syntax rather than an > identical in-house syntax? Alternately, if partial backwards-compatibility > were desired, the xlink:simpleLink attribute group in the 3.0 schema could > be extended to allow attributes from either namespace, with the METS > namespace being deprecated. We're looking into this, and currently getting clarification from Mets on why they took the approach they did. Thanks. --Ray