• From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 12:33:40 -0400

Len,


> Sure, but one can come up with different ways to
> do that, and reapplication of XLinks is possible.
> It isn't that RDDL isn't important given enough
> acceptance, it simply isn't core, meaning, XML
> application languages build off of it in the
> same way they would with XLink, XInclude, and
> so on.  XML systems can build off it and I'm
> sure many will.
>

It is namespaces that are the core part of XML. RDDL provides people and
software a reasonable way to find out about and use namespace related
information.

It turns out that an XHTML document is a great way for people to find out
about a namespace, and XLink allows software to discover similar
information.

-Jonathan

• References:
  • RE: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-sc hema)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm
• Next by Date: displaying xlinks
• Previous by thread: RE: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-sc hema)
• Next by thread: RE: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-sc hema)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread