• To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Subject: Re: RDDL(2): new version up
• From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
• Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:04:28 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1074458181.24853.364.camel@delleric>
• References: <0494A708-49EF-11D8-B62D-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <1074458181.24853.364.camel@delleric>

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

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: RDDL(2): new version up
• Next by Date: Re: fetching the text value of an element inside an element
• Previous by thread: Re: RDDL(2): new version up
• Next by thread: Re: RDDL(2): new version up
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread