• To: "Andreas Sewe" <sewe@r...>
• Subject: Re: RDDL and user interface
• From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
• Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 21:02:38 -0400
• Cc: "Eric Hanson" <eric@a...>, "[XML-Dev]" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <004301c42961$aa02e720$c5d8e03e@baron>
• References: <18500C7E-817E-11D8-B1DD-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <20040329195706.A64944@a...> <75BFDD54-8656-11D8-B1DD-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <20040406115337.A44878@a...> <C83EA63B-8B6A-11D8-B1DD-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <20040414121851.A19854@a...> <4708961A-9073-11D8-886B-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <20040418021926.A64089@a...> <7A809278-9314-11D8-886B-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <004301c42961$aa02e720$c5d8e03e@baron>

Andreas Sewe wrote:

> Jonathan Borden wrote:
>> I suppose that if you are simply looking to use nature and purpose you
>> can simply use rddl:nature and rddl:purpose as a simple vocabulary.
>> Indeed take a look at RDDL2: http://www.rddl.org/rddl2
>
>> Eric Hanson wrote:
>>> I like RDDL as a starting place, but maybe what I'd like to see
>>> is some kind of sister spec for non-human-readable RDDL.
>
> Speaking of RDDL2: What was the reason for abandoning XLink?
>
> I'm curious because the first thing that came to my mind when reading 
> about
> Typekit was that it's basically - in XLink terms - an extended, 
> third-party
> linkbase.
>

RDDL2 came out of discussions on the W3C TAG mailing list and the 
archives of this list contain all the reasoning behind this.

Jonathan

• Prev by Date: DAFIF and date formats
• Next by Date: Re: DAFIF and date formats
• Previous by thread: schema versioning and RDDL
• Next by thread: YesLogic Prince 3.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread