[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-sc hema)
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. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@t...] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 4:05 PM To: xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-sc hema) At 11:31 AM 30/05/01 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >RDDL is a pack o' XLinks. It's a good idea and well done >but not a core piece. Hmm. *If* RDDL takes off, its role is going to be pretty damn central. Since the design of XML empirically has a bias in favor of using multiple related resources to do one job for a class of data objects, whatever's used to tie them together is important. >It is an application language that >one may adopt to align pieces just as one might learn >Topic Maps. But learn XLinks first and then RDDL/Topic Maps. Huh? Try again, I fail to parse this. -Tim
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|