[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Paul T wrote:
> >
> > > This wins with no question, I think. And I think
> > > the buzzword should be not RDF, but RDDL
> > > ( not the current version, sorry ;-( ).
> >
> > I agree. I'm curious what you would like to see changed in RDDL, though.
>
> 1. The process.
>
> I'm kinda tired of W3C geniuses silently and suddenly
> "Leading the Web to its Full Potential...".
>
> Too much politics around RDDL.
Is this flamebait? To set the record straight:
The entire RDDL design and discussion has taken place on the XML-DEV list.
It is an open, unmoderated list that anyone may join. I have tried to
include anyone who has comment on or made a suggestion regarding RDDL on the
list of contributors (if I have left anyone off, it is simply an error). I
have not judged the 'worthiness' of the contributions, though not every
suggestion has been followed. Even some of the, honestly, very few private
discussions that Tim Bray and I ever had regarding RDDL were often copied,
perhaps erroneously, or perhaps purposefully to XML-DEV. It is _all_ in the
archives. Please go back and reread.
So if RDDL has been too much politics it must be too much grass roots
democracy. What can I say, I consider this type of politics a good thing but
perhaps I am culturally biased.
...
>
> - I wanna cry.
>
> > Is it time to revisit RDDL?
>
> I think that it always be the right time.
> The problems are still there, they just
> decided not to touch it. Politics, politics.
>
Who is "they"? Instead of sitting on your duff whining about what you don't
like, why not make a concrete proposal? If you don't like the current RDDL,
make a suggestion. Provide some code which supports your proposal. Can you?
Frankly, I don't think you have the ability. Prove me wrong. Seriously.
Jonathan
|
