[dsdl-discuss] Re: Namespace Routing Language

From: "MURATA Makoto" <murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp>

> I think that some paragraphs about the relationship between NRL and the Part 4 FCD
> are strongly required. In particular, is NRL technically identical to the
> Part 4 FCD (which does not exist yet).

I am very interested in Murata-san's insights into it, and the opinions of the other Japanese
experts, who seem to have the best grip on the kind of problems that need to be solved.

> It would be very nice if we agree to adopt RNL as the FCD and James can
> say so in this RNL spec.

It would be fast and nice, but technical considerations should win! The attach idea
needs time to digest, but the rest seems to address the kind of issues we have
discussed before.

If FCD allows scope for adequate usage experience to feedback, and if NRL is
consonant with the approach Murata-san was going to take, then it is probabably
fine to move it to FCD.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

--
DSDL members discussion list
To unsubscribe, please send a message with the
command  "unsubscribe" to dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org
(mailto:dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org?Subject=unsubscribe)