Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...> > RDDL can be used as a way to create distributed java applications (via the > RDDLClassLoader). Which makes it a perfect framework to dustribute viruses, so certification is unavoidable. As any person who've written java applets would know, caching is also unavoidable, because one can not afford making a request over the internet every time some tag get's processed. And to keep the cache up to date one should provide a mechanism for distribution, similiar to those used by DNS / FidoNet. And so on. I've written about this stuff already. It may be not bad idea to re-read my first letters to this thread. All the ways of possible abuse of namespace URL listed by you and not listed by you - I thought of them already, and I'm almost sure that some other people, like Clark Evans, Don Park and I think Gavin - they also did. I also know that this abuse is not ideal thing, because it should not be talking about the namespaces at all, but I can live with that. It is not important. Any kind of functionality you may think of, you can provide *not* abusing the namespace URL. However, I understand that because the loophole for abuse is huge, there is a strong desire to abuse it before some big company does. Not that I have anything against 'let's be first to abuse namespaces URL' ( and you *already* started the abuse with hidden schema extension ) , if that would be done in reasonable, open way. Unfortunately, that is not the way RDDL is developing and I said about that right from the beginning. As a result, I think that it is good that this RDDL thingy did not make it to the W3C Note, because hidden abuse *is* hidden abuse, no matter who is abusing namespaces, would it be big company or a small company. Does not matter. > I agree that the implications are huge. You cannot start to explain why this > is a bad thing to do. I consider this a good thing, indeed a basic part of > some form of the 'Semantic Web', but I would never try to force you to do > things this way. If you consider this a 'bad thing' and I consider this a > 'good thing' then so be it. As I've said many times ( and right from the beginning ), there are just a few *particular* problems with RDDL that are: 1. The Process RDDL is developeing. "It is just a documentation, with a few URLs, no it has some proprietary hooks into schema parsers already, no - we don't actually know, but our document is styled with W3C stylesheet and we got some people who may like to promote this RDDL word with the articles that contradict our own words for the reasons that nobody would understand". 2. No clear understanding how would somebody gonna *use* the resulting framework. DNS had a clear problem to solve: "it is not convinient to use numeric addressing". FidoNet had a clear problem to solve : "how to manage distributed unreliable network of volonteers so that they can send letters to each other". Namespaces was solving a clear problem : "how can we differentiate between tag A used by one company and tag A used by another company". I'm not saying that Namespaces is a right answer to this problem, but at least the problem itself was kinda clear. XSLT / XSL? "We need to render documents". CSS? "How can I place the style in one file and then all my pages would look the same" Everywhere. Any W3C paper. Any technical solution out there has some *clear* problem that it tries to solve and the *problem* can be explained in simple terms. What is the *clear* problem that RDDL is gonna solve? There is *no* such. Can you correct me? Can you? That would be a great day for the Web. That would be the day we'l get the second TBL who will lead the Web v 2.0 to it's *full* potential, because current web is a huge book, and the next step is to turn it into huge 'brain'. Perhaps we would need to wait for years for the *problem* to appear, because, maybe, nobody needs the huge brain. If somebody would need, that somebody would tell us what is the application he want's to get produced. Actually, I don't think you have any answer to the only question I've asked you several times: "how do you gonna use it?" If playing fair, one should just be honest and say : "I don't know. I just got excited with the fact that I can grab the 'meaning' of some tag from the internet, and maybe some day I'l understand what is the purpose of the code I'm writing". Do you think that if playing fair you would get a single bad word from me? No way. The only thing *I* need from XML and the only reason why I'm wasting my time with XML is that I think that maybe, some day it would be possible to create ... RDDL. Whatever. The task is really complex and it can not be accomplished in the closed, spy vs spy, buzzword producing way, which is a firm style of W3C that is now copied by smart people for the reasons I will *never* understand. It not aways been like that! So the first and the last thing I said - the problems I have with RDDL are : 1. Process. 2. I don't understand who and how is gonna use the framework. In result of this thread I got no information that would ensure me that: 1. Process of developing RDDL is open and sound. 2. Maintainers of RDDL have *any* clue on what they really gonna do and *why*. "We're thinking about fetching some stuff by Namespace URI" is *neither* a framework, *nor* a clue. The question "how we gonna use it" is *really* hard, but if not understanding what is the *problem* RDDL is gonna solve - discussing the words used in RDDL paper becomes a scholastics dispute, which is a plain waste of time. I don't understand your desire to turn this discussion into that kind of dispute, because I don't think you are 'evil', or what you do is 'evil'. However, the only way we *can* find the holy grail of Web v 2.0 is to exchange ideas with fellow XML developers that's why I think some of us are here ( and that was the kind of conversation that was happening before I used the buzzword 'RDDL' ) It is really a bad thing that in XML world buzzwords become more important, than ideas. *That* is evil. Rgds.Paul.
|
