RE: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-sc hema)

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

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@textuality.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 4:05 PM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
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