OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] RDDL (was RE: [xml-dev] Negotiate Out The Noise)

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]


Most of the things you're writing in the
letter below are 100% correct, some
( very few ) interpolations of my words
are not 100% accurate.

For example - technical side - as I said,
RDDL with the level of indirection they
are providing - it will simply not work.
Other points about certification e t.c.
should be discussed in a context of bigger
picture and not in context of RDDL, e t.c.

Also, my point with 'misleading general public'
was that in this thread you first said that there
is no support for multiple namespaces mix
and immediately after that, Johnatan says :
"there is such a support" ( I still think
that it is mostly bullshit, but not a 'support' ).

That's the *exact* copy of situation that we had
with the 'Namspaces URI "point to nothing" -
then Andrew steps in and says "no, you guys
get it wrong" . I had no desire to insult you.
Try re-reading my letter after reading this

If I would  think that "Leigh is writing misleading
articles on RDDL because of conspiracy" -
there is a big chance I'd just say it straight. ;-)

And of course there is no information
in RDDL paper itself. Heck, they did not even
bother to provide a *single* example in their
'specification'. Unbelievable bullshit. Can you
think of any technical paper describing some
syntax with not a single example?

Well -  they already confirmed that RDDL
is a joke, with that 'riddle' or something,
so why bother with examples, when
*all* they do is joking all the time?

"What is the task you want RDDL
to solve? - he-he, it is to avoid
404 URL not-found"

If *this* is the task, then just place the empty file at
that location and shut up. Damn it.

I will not waste a minute of my time talking about  this
disgusting 'technology', called RDDL which is
"supposed to avoid 404 URL not found from the
web server log" and I hope that my name would be removed
from the RDDL paper ASAP ( it is a second time
I'm asking for it) , so Leigh, I really appreciate your
reasonable and nice done attempt to put things back
to normal, but it is clear for me that I don't want things
back to 'normal' with these people. These people are
making too much noise and playing too many cheap tricks.
Anyone, who re-reads the thread can clearly see that.

I've asked only *one* question, which is "what is RDDL for,
what is the real-life project you would use  for?" and I got
no friggin answer, just stupid jokes.

I'm out and we may talk about this distributed stuff
on SML-dev, which is a list of experienced and honest
people, free of stupid politicians. Politicians are really

See you on some other list some day. In my opinion,
your contribution to this thread was more valuable,
than contributions of other people who have a sin of
'promoting RDDL'.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Leigh Dodds" <ldodds@ingenta.com>
To: "Paul T" <pault12@pacbell.net>; <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 8:26 AM
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] RDDL (was RE: [xml-dev] Negotiate Out The Noise)

> Paul,
> I've just spent some time working back through your
> posts, and the previous discussion to attempt to understand
> where the disagreements are.
> It seems that the fundamental point of disagreement is that
> you're asking "what is RDDL for?, what problems does it solve?,
> what applications does it let me build more easily?". And in
> particular you're considering it's applicability to distributed
> where some negotiation is required (cf: Lens original thread).
> You've asserted that the origins of RDDL are political and not
> technical in nature and that any suggestions as to how RDDL might be
> used in that context are purely scientific. In effect that RDDL is
> a solution to a political problem ("Whats at the end of a Namespace?"),
> and is being used to propose technical solutions in other scenarios.
> Here I disagree. RDDL is a solution to a problem that you helped identify,
> and which Mike Champion dubbed the 'Tool X Horror Scenario' [1]. In your
> opinion the loophole that would allow NS URIs to be abused should be
> You also argued that it would take 'years' to identify what should be
> put there if anything. Others believed letting it point to a directory of
> would meet everyones needs. I don't see any politics involved, just a
> different opinion on the best way to avoid the Horror Scenario.
> We can reasonably disagree over whether you see this as a political
> issue. I see RDDL (or an alternative) as more of an interoperability spec,
> would avoid the creation of ad hoc solutions. As you disagree that this
> is a useful problem to solve, it's not surprising you don't see any
> value in RDDL.
> You've also stated that some of us, myself included, have been misleading
> developers by telling them that there's nothing at the end of a NS URI,
> then turning round and telling them to use RDDL. I still believe the
> to be the letter of the spec, but believe the latter is required for the
> above reasons. Any claim of 'spy vs spy' is a little insulting.
> You've agreed that something *like* RDDL (a way of discovering
> resources) *is* required. But have raised issues about caching,
> etc. There's no disputing that. But this seems to have more
> to do with the resources themselves ("How do I know this Java class
> isn't going to damage my system?") than the directory format. Note that
> it's  also previously been pointed out that RDDL docs could be cached
> locally if one deferences the URI via a Catalog.
> As far as concrete feedback on RDDL goes, I see you've made the
> following points:
> - rddl:resource and anchors have redundancy, you'd prefer something
> like annotations on the anchor directly. Your rddl-hook attribute.
> - that defining something called 'purpose' with an attribute called
> is confusing.
> I'm not sure I really do understand your other claims about how RDDL
> interacts with Namespaces. I have a feeling that your saying that a
> single general purpose schema for a namespace isn't useful for
> circumstances where those elements may be mixed freely with others
> from other Namespaces. If so I agree, but I don't see what RDDL
> has to do with this.
> To me it suggests that elements intended to be used in this way should
> not used closed schemas. This is one of the reasons I like Schematron so
> much.
> Cheers,
> L.
> [1]. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/01/10/rddl.html
> [2]. http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200012/msg00662.html
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS