W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2004

Re: RDDL2 Background

From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:14:34 -0500
Message-Id: <p06010212bc31f7edd8ea@[]>
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
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
Received on Monday, 19 January 2004 16:35:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:03 UTC