CARVIEW |
Select Language
HTTP/2 200
date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 10:34:21 GMT
content-type: text/html
content-encoding: gzip
content-location: 0036.html
vary: negotiate,Accept-Encoding
tcn: choice
last-modified: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 17:54:23 GMT
cache-control: max-age=2592000, public
expires: Sun, 09 Nov 2025 10:27:07 GMT
access-control-allow-origin: *
x-request-id: 988a9fe15e4aee73
strict-transport-security: max-age=15552015; preload
x-frame-options: deny
x-xss-protection: 1; mode=block
cf-cache-status: HIT
set-cookie: __cf_bm=ihfwBSlKW2jyqyRlbZRHKTPYwoCTA_ECu0H_mJOWS2A-1760092461-1.0.1.1-YDmqBKuKb0shF2BmF52GMDQmhavb9EzHPZ.zVM7yL5TJFMOla.nyjFjJXJCi0F3FM9V0LEYT8LvrhcL0iVtDnS6s9cxYQlYZu49aTcTXQ30; path=/; expires=Fri, 10-Oct-25 11:04:21 GMT; domain=.w3.org; HttpOnly; Secure; SameSite=None
server: cloudflare
cf-ray: 98c576f4ebe5dfa6-BLR
alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400
Re: RDDL natures and purposes from Jonathan Borden on 2006-01-09 (www-tag@w3.org from January 2006)
Re: RDDL natures and purposes
- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 15:33:39 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-Id: <68A0A490-2C7A-45BA-A9B2-7465BF293DD9@openhealth.org>
Norman Walsh wrote: ... > | I am perfectly happy to change the URI to something more > appropriate > | ... suggestions? > > Not for that one, but Henry pointed out that the nature of XML Schema > is currently listed as https://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema where > https://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema would be more appropriate. Fixed. (changes that I can make with "pico" can generally be done quickly :-)) As you can see https://www.rddl.org/natures/ has not received the detailed editing that https://www.rddl.org/ has. > > | Finally, I have not received any feedback on the proposed > revision of > | RDDL to incorporate the "rddl:nature" and "rddl:purpose" attributes. > | i.e. > | > | https://www.rddl.org/20050704/ > > Uhm. I see "7. RDDL Attributes" in the ToC, but > "7. Related Resources for RDDL" in the actual document. > > Given that RDDL 1.0 has become widely deployed since we started this > excercise, I've been leading the TAG discussions away from any > particular syntax and towards a common model. I understand. Nonetheless I am trying to maintain the bits on the wire. > > | (this document needs more work but gives you the idea of what is > | being proposed ... namely allowing <a rddl:nature="..." > | rddl:purpose="..."> in addition to what is already in RDDL 1.0) > | > | is this something anyone has a strong feeling about (Tim and I > are in > | favor if that counts). > > I'm in favor too, I think. Good. Unless I hear any objections -- I am going to post another request for comments on XML-DEV -- I will clean this version up, incorporate any new changes arising from these discussions, and issue an update to RDDL. Regarding the persistence policy for rddl.org -- I am happy to maintain this until a more appropriate home presents itself. Jonathan
Received on Monday, 9 January 2006 20:37:58 UTC