[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Jan 18, 2004, at 3:36 PM, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
>
>
>> - The syntax *is* simpler which is a Very Good Thing
>> - XLink does not appear to have achieved traction
>> - Because the syntax is substantially changed I've bumped the Version
>> number up to 2.0 --- perhaps we ought use a different *namespace name*
>> e.g. http://www.rddl.org/rddl2# -- let's hear discussion on this.
>
> Hmmm... that means that right now, all the existing RDDL documents have
> a URI which describes a totally different vocabulary! That doesn't seem
> right either.
>
Ok, for the moment (until we get some consensus on whether to either
keep the same namespace for RDDL, or to use another) I've placed the
new spec at
http://www.rddl.org/rddl2
*but* left the namespace the same in that document.
Jonathan
|
