• From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
• To: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:53:07 -0500

  Elliotte Harold wrote:

> Jonathan Borden wrote:
>> In light of the recent discussion, perhaps it was premature to  
>> change the natures document http://www.rddl.org/natures
>> I have reverted this to the old version.
>> The new version is at: http://www.rddl.org/natures-new
>> For discussion purposes.
>> Does anyone have any objections to the proposed syntax at: http:// 
>> www.rddl.org/20050704 ?
>
> I am now confused. What has changed or is proposed for change? What  
> are we commenting on?

The July 4, 2005 proposed RDDL syntax allows (in addition to  
<rddl:resource xlink:role= xlink:arcrole= > ) placing rddl:nature and  
rddl:purpose attributes directly on <html:a> elements e.g.

<a rddl:nature="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"  
rddl:purpose="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#schema-validation"  
href="http://www.example.org/myschema.xsd">myschema.xsd</a>

This change should be backward compatible with the current RDDL  
syntax such that all current RDDL documents will still be "new" RDDL  
documents. Tim Bray feels that this new syntax is more readable, and  
I agree. Moreover there is little harm in allowing this.

Jonathan

• References:
  • RDDL: natures updates
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
  • RDDL: new version, natures updates
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: RDDL: new version, natures updates
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>