W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2005

Re: minutes TAG 8 Nov for review: namespaceDocument-8, XMLVersioning-41, etc.

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:25:36 -0500
Message-Id: <5B015D2F-638C-4EDB-ABAA-ED750C093EF7@openhealth.org>
To: www-tag@w3.org

>
> namespaceDocument-8
>
>    <DanC_> [14]Associating Resources with Namespaces 7 November 2005
>
>      [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/
>
>    NDW: pls excuse encoding noise... working on .htaccess
>    ... am I on the right track?
>
>    DanC: it's not so much "instead of" RDDL... we're also endorsing
>    RDDL as is, right?
>
>    NDW: right.
>
>    <noah> Noah thinks that Norm's "We hope to: 1)... 2)... 3)..." is
>    balanced on the status of RDDL.
>
>    DanC: I'm not in a good position to review... I'll just see what I
>    want to see
>
>    Ed: I'm OK to review it.

I note that there remains the desire to "simplify" the RDDL 1.0  
syntax e.g. RDDL 2.0. In the past I've been, and remain, concerned  
that moving to RDDL 2.0 (as per the document on tim bray's site) is  
not backward compatible with RDDL 1.0. I have suggested that RDDL 1.0  
and RDDL 2.0 could be merged to allow either the  XLink or the  
attribute based syntax, see:

http://www.rddl.org/20050704/

This syntax incorporates the suggestions that have come out of the  
TAG discussions. The advantage is that authors could decide which  
style to use -- the syntax is still simple enough for software to  
easily deal with (xlink:arcrole is synonynous with rddl:purpose and  
likewise for xlink:role and rddl:nature)

We have received no comments on this. Does this mean that RDDL 1.0  
vs. RDDL 2.0 is really a non-issue, or is it worth updating RDDL to  
allow a simpler authoring style? Or is it that my July 4th weekend  
work got lost in the summer sun...

Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2005 12:25:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:37 GMT