- From: Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:56:14 -0800
- To: "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
> Time has passed. More RDDL 1.0 documents have been published. This is certainly true. We are using RDDL 1.0 for more and more namespace documents at Microsoft. These are just two examples: a) Web Services Reliable Messaging Protocol (WS-ReliableMessaging) http://specs.xmlsoap.org/ws/2005/02/rm/ b) SQL Server SQL Types http://schemas.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2004/sqltypes/ /paulc Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Norman Walsh [mailto:Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM] > Sent: April 1, 2005 8:02 AM > To: Paul Cotton; Tim Bray; jonathan@openhealth.org > Cc: www-tag@w3.org > Subject: namespaceDocument-8 > > Ages ago, the TAG picked up an issue[1] about namespace documents. > There was much discussion and, at the time, some desire[2] to create a > different specification. Many were proposed[3]. > > I believe we asked the AC about namespace documents and they asked us > to propose a format. Some variant of RDDL seems the logical choice. > > Time has passed. More RDDL 1.0 documents have been published. And > recently, some improvements to XLink have been proposed[4]. > > I'm no longer confident that it makes sense to persue a newer, > different RDDL. > > What do you think? > > Be seeing you, > norm > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#namespaceDocument-8 > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Nov/0147 > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Dec/0099 > [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-xlink10-ext-20050127/ > > -- > Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc. > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended > recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. > Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. > If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by > reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
Received on Friday, 1 April 2005 19:59:15 UTC