[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Negotiate Out The Noise: (Was RE: SV: SV: XML=

• To: Paul T <pault12@p...>
• Subject: Re: Negotiate Out The Noise: (Was RE: SV: SV: XML=WAP? An d DOA?)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: 16 Jan 2002 21:12:05 -0500
• Cc: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@A...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <02ce01c19ee6$f9515c10$2cd0a340@paultx>
• References: <D7155AD41ECFD511AF4A00B0D0202CB51DFC60@MAILHOST> <02ce01c19ee6$f9515c10$2cd0a340@paultx>

On Wed, 2002-01-16 at 18:39, Paul T wrote:
> > <snip/>
> >
> > > This wins with no question, I think. And I think
> > > the buzzword should be not RDF, but RDDL
> > > ( not the current version, sorry ;-( ).
> >
> > I agree. I'm curious what you would like to see changed in RDDL, though.
> 
> 1. The process.
> 
> I'm kinda tired of W3C geniuses silently and suddenly
> "Leading the Web to its Full Potential...".

Huh?  RDDL was concocted last year around this time on _this_ mailing
list.  It's not a W3C activity, and never has been.  It's never been
submitted as a Note, even.

See http://www.rddl.org

RDF _is_ a W3C activity, but that's not RDDL.

> Too much politics around RDDL.

I've barely heard political discussion about RDDL for months, except for
a nice burst at XML 2001.  What politics are you talking about?
 
> 2. In my oppinion, current RDDL is a scientific
> stuff  that can not be used to solve a 'real problem'
> (see below)
> 
> RDDL makes some step into 'right direction',
> but I don't get many of 'design ideas' behind
> current RDDL ( yet another declarative
> XML-ish 'language' )
> 
> I guess very few developers have enough
> time for it.

Is this RDDL or RDF you're talking about?  I see RDDL as pretty ordinary
documentation with a few pointers to resources, not "scientific stuff".
 
> 4. A real problem is "what should I do when my
> software encounteres the 'unknown tag'". It can
> be solved on namespaces ( like RDDL does ).
> However, in my oppinion,  it is better to be
> solved with a  single and trivial attribute
> rddl-hook="URI" or something.

I don't think anyone would argue if you wanted to do rddl-hook in your
own code, but RDDL did emerge from the endless discussions of "what goes
at the end of a namespace URI" - and ended those discussions pretty
nicely.  (One bizarre outburst on www-talk@w... being the only
exception I've seen.)

> Just place some human-readable documentation
> at the end of namespace URL and that
> would work. ;-)

RDDL lets you do that.  Links to resources are totally optional.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • DZIP update (was Re: Negotiate Out The Noise: )
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • Newbie looking for resources (want to create XML app for music collection)
    • From: "lee100" <lee100@s...>
  • Re: Negotiate Out The Noise: (Was RE: SV: SV: [xml-de v]XML=WAP? An d DOA?)
    • From: Paul T <pault12@p...>

• References:
  • RE: Negotiate Out The Noise: (Was RE: SV: SV: XML=WAP? An d DOA?)
    • From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@A...>
  • Re: Negotiate Out The Noise: (Was RE: SV: SV: [xml-de v]XML=WAP? An d DOA?)
    • From: Paul T <pault12@p...>

• Prev by Date: RE: entity references for special characters and the Sax parser
• Next by Date: Re: Negotiate Out The Noise: (Was RE: SV: SV: [xml-de v]XML=WAP? An d DOA?)
• Previous by thread: Re: Negotiate Out The Noise: (Was RE: SV: SV: [xml-de v]XML=WAP? An d DOA?)
• Next by thread: Re: Negotiate Out The Noise: (Was RE: SV: SV: [xml-de v]XML=WAP? An d DOA?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread