• From: James Fuller <jim.fuller@r...>
• To: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
• Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:11:14 +0200

Ben Trafford wrote:
> 
> At 11:51 AM 9/25/2006, James Fuller wrote:
> 
>> dont know if RDDL has some part to play here?
> 
> 
>         The essential problem I have with RDDL is the requirement that 
> roles be stated as URIs. I mean, that's fine if you're only trying to 
> use it to define namespaces (its intended purpose), but not so good for 
> things like CML, for example.


agreed,

the reason why I mentioned it was that I toyed around with building a 
simplistic facade over XLINK, using RDDL a few years ago...though I am 
afraid there is too much DPH(desperate perl hacker)-ness to the approach.

I am afraid that I would drown in 'flame' proposing it here....for 
starters.....I added an xml:href attribute (yes adding attributes to xml 
reserved namespace is a very silly thing to do) which was easy and 
simple to use.

gl, Jim Fuller

• References:
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • RE: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>
  • Re: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: James Fuller <jim.fuller@r...>
  • Re: Xlink Isn't Dead
    • From: Ben Trafford <ben@p...>