- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:25:36 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
> > namespaceDocument-8 > > <DanC_> [14]Associating Resources with Namespaces 7 November 2005 > > [14] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/ > > NDW: pls excuse encoding noise... working on .htaccess > ... am I on the right track? > > DanC: it's not so much "instead of" RDDL... we're also endorsing > RDDL as is, right? > > NDW: right. > > <noah> Noah thinks that Norm's "We hope to: 1)... 2)... 3)..." is > balanced on the status of RDDL. > > DanC: I'm not in a good position to review... I'll just see what I > want to see > > Ed: I'm OK to review it. I note that there remains the desire to "simplify" the RDDL 1.0 syntax e.g. RDDL 2.0. In the past I've been, and remain, concerned that moving to RDDL 2.0 (as per the document on tim bray's site) is not backward compatible with RDDL 1.0. I have suggested that RDDL 1.0 and RDDL 2.0 could be merged to allow either the XLink or the attribute based syntax, see: http://www.rddl.org/20050704/ This syntax incorporates the suggestions that have come out of the TAG discussions. The advantage is that authors could decide which style to use -- the syntax is still simple enough for software to easily deal with (xlink:arcrole is synonynous with rddl:purpose and likewise for xlink:role and rddl:nature) We have received no comments on this. Does this mean that RDDL 1.0 vs. RDDL 2.0 is really a non-issue, or is it worth updating RDDL to allow a simpler authoring style? Or is it that my July 4th weekend work got lost in the summer sun... Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2005 12:25:47 UTC