RE: Revisiting namespaceDocument-8


The changes are an improvement.

I propose a compromise between RDDL 1.0 and RDDL 2.0 in the following

Suppose RDDL 1.0 is updated to allow for the rddl:nature and rddl:purpose
attribute on <a> elements. This would allow an author the -choice- of using
the RDDL 1.0 style (simple Xlinks on <rddl:resource> elements) -or- RDDL 2.0
style <a rddl:nature="foo:bar" rddl:purpose="baz">. The advantage is that
RDDL 1.0 documents would remain compatible with the RDDL 2.0 format, and yet
authors can choose to use the nature/purpose authoring style rather than the
older xlink style. That way we have one format.

I think this is the best compromise among folks who like the cleanness of
RDDL 2.0 with folks who are using RDDL 1.0.

At the same time we can add the profile onto the <head>


/ Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM> was heard to say:
| At the recent f2f, the TAG discussed namespaceDocument-8 again and 
| considered how we might make progress. I've published an outline of 
| our ideas at

In response to some private comments from Paul Cotton (thanks, Paul), I've
made a couple of small changes to that document.

1. I've added a summary of what the proposal actually suggests.
2. I've added a note explaining that my sample RDDL documents are
   copies of the W3C XML Schema namespace document.

I haven't had a chance to digest other comments on this thread, but I hope
to do so...I was going to say today, but tomorrow's a better bet at this

                                        Be seeing you,

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 Wednesday, 29 June 2005 21:25:09 UTC