• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 14:05:25 -0700

At 11:31 AM 30/05/01 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>RDDL is a pack o' XLinks.  It's a good idea and well done 
>but not a core piece.  

Hmm.  *If* RDDL takes off, its role is going to be pretty
damn central.  Since the design of XML empirically has a 
bias in favor of using multiple related resources to do 
one job for a class of data objects, whatever's used to
tie them together is important.

>It is an application language that 
>one may adopt to align pieces just as one might learn 
>Topic Maps.  But learn XLinks first and then RDDL/Topic Maps. 

Huh?  Try again, I fail to parse this. -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Hey Diddle Riddle (was Re: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticedabout w3c's xml-sc hema))
    • From: Edd Dumbill <edd@u...>

• Prev by Date: Re: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema)
• Next by Date: Re: Off-Topic: RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema
• Previous by thread: RE: Web Services stuff - fyi
• Next by thread: Hey Diddle Riddle (was Re: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticedabout w3c's xml-sc hema))
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread