• To: Nicolas LEHUEN <nicolas.lehuen@u...>, 'Jonathan Borden' <jborden@m...>, 'Paul T' <pault12@p...>, "'Bullard, Claude L (Len)'" <clbullar@i...>, 'Leigh Dodds' <ldodds@i...>, "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
• From: Nicolas LEHUEN <nicolas.lehuen@u...>
• Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:32:17 +0100

>But anyway, I think there are two problems that RDDL try to 
>solve in the
>same document and that should be separated : resource linking and
>human-readable documentation.

And once again, RDDL try to solve it the wrong way, by its assumption that
resource description and linking has something to do with namespaces. If
RDDL was NDL (Namespace Description Language), there would be no problem.
You would describe namespaces and link to resources to those namespaces. But
as I wrote earlier, I don't think that RDDL is appropriate to handle
resources that contain mixed namespaces.

Regards,
Nicolas

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: The No Silver-Bullet Manifesto (was XML=WAP? And DOA?)
• Next by Date: Re: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
• Previous by thread: Re: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
• Next by thread: Re: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread