- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 21:18:59 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
I can't say that I opposed converting RDDL to an RDF form, but I have to say that the last few days of messages have left me asking why exactly this is supposed to be such a good idea. The TAG has made strong comments pushing XHTML in the direction of XLink. RDDL is currently based on a combination of XHTML and XLink, and seems in some ways like it should be a poster child for that integration, yet we've watched the last week pretty much devolve into an open discussion of the mismatches between RDF and XML. Can we just halt further insistence on what looks more and more like an obvious mismatch (square peg, round hole) and get back to using XLink, which (whatever its faults may be) was at least designed with the explicit goal of connecting URI-identified resources in an XML environment? ------------- Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA http://simonstl.com may be my URI http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 21:18:54 UTC