Chris -
The point...I think:
I'd be inclined to recommend/suggest but not mandate RDDL at this time,
but with your (Chris's) enhancements.
Some have expressed concern about the stability of RDDL; I think that
it's been stable since 2004 (i.e., no one is apparently working on
it)...maybe it's so stable it's dead?
Oh, and there's yet another version (get this) at
http://rddl.org/index (Dated January 22, 2001)
so that makes three versions just at rddl.org, the other two being
http://rddl.org/index.html (and, as one would expect,
http://rddl.org) (Dated February 18, 2002)
and
http://rddl.org/rddl2 (dated January 18, 2004) (this is the
shortest document)
Just to keep in the current IPR mood, there are no IPR declarations or
copyright on any of them.
bill
Christopher B Ferris wrote:
And the point being?
Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295
"Hal Lockhart" <hlockhar@bea.com>
wrote on 03/02/2006 05:12:51 PM:
> > | What do others think? As I said, there was a lot of
pushback
on
> RDDL.
> >
> > I don't recall reading the pushback on RDDL, but "and
preference
to
> > have an index.html or one of the other default HTML pages"
isn't
> > related. RDDL is a mechanism for placing metadata in HTML.
>
>
> Ok, for the record, last summer Bill and I tried to figure out the
> standards pedigree of RDDL so we could cite it.
>
> No sign of it at W3C, not even published as a Note.
>
> At www.rddl.org, there is a spec dated Feb 18, 2002, no version
> specified. I guess this is version 1.
>
> At http://www.openhealth.org/RDDL/20040118/rddl-20040118.html
there
is a
> spec dated Jan 18, 2004 marked as version 2.0. It describes itself
as "a
> draft".
>
> At http://www.tbray.org/tag/rddl/rddl3.html there is a document
dated
> June 1, 2003, with no version. Not sure what version this is.
Perhaps
> Tim's private version? If it is RDDL 3, it is older than RDDL 2.0.
>
> All of these contain the sentence "This document has no official
> standing and has not been considered nor approved by any
organization."
>
> There are also a number of articles, implementations and even a
> Wikipedia article (which points to the 2002 version). The 2004
version
> says "While this document has no official standing, it is the
intention
> of the TAG to seek guidance from the W3C membership and the larger
> community on the question of whether and how to progress this
document
> and the use of RDDL." As far as I can see there has been no work
done on
> RDDL in 2 years.
>
> Will the real RDDL please stand up? If this is as great stuff as
you
all
> say it is, can't somebody put in enough time to push it thru an
OASIS
TC
> or publish it as a TAG Finding? If I put a normative reference to
> something with a pedigree like this in an OASIS Committee Spec and
> submitted it for member approval, I would end up with a bunch of
arrows
> sticking out of me.
>
> Hal
>
_______________________________________________________________________
> Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may
contain
> information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries
and affiliated
> entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
and/or
> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
individual
> or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended
recipient,
> and have received this message in error, please immediately return
this
> by email and then delete it.
|