Re: RDDL natures and purposes

Norman Walsh wrote:
> | I am perfectly happy to change the URI to something more   
> appropriate
> | ... suggestions?
> Not for that one, but Henry pointed out that the nature of XML Schema
> is currently listed as where
> would be more appropriate.

Fixed. (changes that I can make with "pico" can generally be done  
quickly :-))

As you can see has not received the  
detailed editing that has.

> | Finally, I have not received any feedback on the proposed  
> revision of
> | RDDL to incorporate the "rddl:nature" and "rddl:purpose" attributes.
> | i.e.
> |
> |
> Uhm. I see "7. RDDL Attributes" in the ToC, but
> "7. Related Resources for RDDL" in the actual document.
> Given that RDDL 1.0 has become widely deployed since we started this
> excercise, I've been leading the TAG discussions away from any
> particular syntax and towards a common model.

I understand. Nonetheless I am trying to maintain the bits on the wire.

> | (this document needs more work but gives you the idea of what is
> | being proposed ... namely allowing <a rddl:nature="..."
> | rddl:purpose="..."> in addition to what is already in RDDL 1.0)
> |
> | is this something anyone has a strong feeling about (Tim and I  
> are in
> | favor if that counts).
> I'm in favor too, I think.

Good. Unless I hear any objections -- I am going to post another  
request for comments on XML-DEV -- I will clean this version up,  
incorporate any new changes arising from these discussions, and issue  
an update to RDDL.

Regarding the persistence policy for -- I am happy to  
maintain this until a more appropriate home presents itself.


Received on Monday, 9 January 2006 20:37:58 UTC