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

Re: RDDL(2): new version up

• To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Subject: Re: RDDL(2): new version up
• From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:11:46 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l..., www-tag@w...
• In-reply-to: <1074458181.24853.364.camel@delleric>
• References: <0494A708-49EF-11D8-B62D-000A95BA5A2C@o...><1074458181.24853.364.camel@delleric>

At 9:36 PM +0100 1/18/04, Eric van der Vlist wrote:

>>  -This version uses Tim Bray's non-XLink syntax which the TAG seems to
>>  be solidifying on, and for which I haven't heard any opposition to for
>>  at least 6 months. i.e..


Personally, I haven't paid any attention to it. Perhaps that was a 
mistake. Basically I agree with everything Eric said. This is a 
significant step backwards from the XLink based syntax in RDDL 1.0 
which was much more flexible for all the reasons Eric cites.

The only thing I have to add is the question why is a need felt for a 
new syntax? What is lacking in the current syntax? This proposal does 
not appear to add any useful new features compared to RDDL 1.0. What 
is lacking in RDDL 1.0, and is this lack addressed by RDDL 2.0? If 
that question doesn't have a good answer, we should stick with RDDL 
1.0.

-- 

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   elharo@m...
   Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Postel's law, exceptions
• Next by Date: Re: RDDL(2): new version up
• Previous by thread: Re: RDDL(2): new version up
• Next by thread: Re: RDDL(2): new version up
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread