[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-sc hema)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Tim Bray <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 08:13:59 -0500
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.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Tim Bray [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 4:05 PM
Subject: RE: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's
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