Thought it was obvious.
1. We never documented why we dropped
RDDL. It was not because we didn’t like the concept of RDDL.
2. Because RDDL consists of a bunch of
different documents scattered around on various web sites with no clear home,
it could disappear tomorrow.
3. It is not only unclear what version of
RDDL to cite, it is unclear even what version represents the best and latest. The
tree appears to have forked.
4. Although every version is labeled as a non-final
draft, no work has been done for two years. This suggests that the spec is an
orphan and not something OASIS should cite either normatively or as a best
practice.
Hal
From: Christopher B
Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006
9:25 PM
To: Hal
Lockhart
Cc: James Bryce Clark; Norman
Walsh; oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; William Cox
Subject: [oasis-member-discuss]
RE: RDDL use in ASIS
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.
_______________________________________________________________________
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.
|