Lists Home |
Date Index |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>
> > > I agree. I'm curious what you would like to see changed in RDDL,
> > 1. The process.
> > I'm kinda tired of W3C geniuses silently and suddenly
> > "Leading the Web to its Full Potential...".
> Huh? RDDL was concocted last year around this time on _this_ mailing
> list. It's not a W3C activity, and never has been. It's never been
> submitted as a Note, even.
I know. And I think it is good that it never been submited
as a Note.
> > Too much politics around RDDL.
> I've barely heard political discussion about RDDL for months, except for
> a nice burst at XML 2001. What politics are you talking about?
In my oppinion, the RDDL itself is first of all a plain
political act, if comparing it to any material, produced
by SML-DEV, for example.
> > 2. In my oppinion, current RDDL is a scientific
> > stuff that can not be used to solve a 'real problem'
> > (see below)
> > RDDL makes some step into 'right direction',
> > but I don't get many of 'design ideas' behind
> > current RDDL ( yet another declarative
> > XML-ish 'language' )
> > I guess very few developers have enough
> > time for it.
> Is this RDDL or RDF you're talking about? I see RDDL as pretty ordinary
> documentation with a few pointers to resources, not "scientific stuff".
You can replace 'scientific stuff' with 'pretty ordinary
documentation with a few pointers', if you like.
There is a references to XLink and many other
words in RDDL paper. My first impression was that
I just don't understand what are they talking about
( but that's could be my personal reaction to almost
any document which is styled with W3C CSS stylesheets ).
What is RDDL for? Who is supposed to use it and for what ?
With the risk of repeating myself :
1. If RDDL is for 'computers' - it has a questionable value.
Those, who belive otherwise are welcome to explain, how
can I use RDDL for writing a 'distributed application'
or 'webservice' or whatever.
2. If RDDL is for 'humans' - then I belive that
there is a very little value to host RDDL instead
of plain HTML page.
> > 4. A real problem is "what should I do when my
> > software encounteres the 'unknown tag'". It can
> > be solved on namespaces ( like RDDL does ).
> > However, in my oppinion, it is better to be
> > solved with a single and trivial attribute
> > rddl-hook="URI" or something.
> I don't think anyone would argue if you wanted to do rddl-hook in your
> own code, but RDDL did emerge from the endless discussions of "what goes
> at the end of a namespace URI" - and ended those discussions pretty
> nicely. (One bizarre outburst on firstname.lastname@example.org being the only
> exception I've seen.)
So in result of that discussion two guys have published some
paper called RDDL, saying : "this could be at the end of
namespace URI". You see it as a 'nice ending'. I would love
to understand why do you think that it is :
> > Just place some human-readable documentation
> > at the end of namespace URL and that
> > would work. ;-)
> RDDL lets you do that. Links to resources are totally optional.
Is RDDL for 'computers' or for 'humans' ? What is the
real problem RDDL solves and who is using RDDL?
To me, RDDL is just a nice looking paper, responding to
the fact that there 'could be something at the end of
Problem 'what will be at the and of namespace URI'
is still neither solved, nor addressed and it is also
orthogonal to 'how can we make XML self-describing'.
The explanations are in my previous letters on this subject.
I believe that it would be better for me to disappear from
this thread now.