Re: [xml-dev] RDDL(2): new version up

• From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
• Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:48:40 -0500
• To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
• Cc: www-tag@w3.org
• Message-ID: <r02000200-1028-F49CF5984A9611D8AD220003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>

elharo@metalab.unc.edu (Elliotte Rusty Harold) writes:
>This proposal does 
>not appear to add any useful new features compared to RDDL 1.0. What 
>is lacking in RDDL 1.0, and is this lack addressed by RDDL 2.0? If 
>that question doesn't have a good answer, we should stick with RDDL 
>1.0.

After thinking about this for a while, I'm with Elliotte.  Comparing the
two, I don't see any real pluses in the 2.0 proposal.

I did follow the conversation on www-tag and even liked some of the
proposals at the time, but comparing the results leaves me shrugging my
shoulders.

At the very least, I'd agree with Jonathan that "perhaps we ought use a
different *namespace name*" for these vocabularies. 

Received on Monday, 19 January 2004 10:49:52 UTC