- From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:14:34 -0500
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org <www-tag@w3.org>
At 11:19 AM -0800 1/19/04, Tim Bray wrote: >The one thing it loses that RDDL1 gave you, as Eric points out, is >the ability to have a bunch of marked-up descriptive text *inside* >your related-resource link. I'm having trouble getting upset about >that, since it seems that the marked-up text is aimed at humans, >while the nature/purpose link is aimed at machine-readability. -Tim It's not just marked up text you lose. RDDL1 allowed resources inside resources. So far RDDL2 doesn't. RDDL1 is imperfect. All specs are. But it's good enough. It gets the job done. It doesn't excessively confuse anyone. Unless there are compelling new features that justify RDDL2, I prefer not to pay the cost of the transition, which, though smaller than the cost of a transition to a more broadly implemented spec such as XML or XSLT, is still non-zero. Bottom line: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003) http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA
Received on Monday, 19 January 2004 16:35:35 UTC