Well, the "x-whatever" use is defined in RFC 3066, and not in XML.
"none" is unfortunately not a valid RFC3066 construct.
But I hope this will be addressed in the bindings (I'll certainly try to
make it so :-)
On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 23:13, Erik Duval wrote:
> The main reason why the LOM Base Schema did not adopt "x-none" approach
> is that, as a "conceptual model", it tries to avoid XML/RDF centric
> Now that the XML binding is entering ballot, and as the RDF binding is
> progressing (thanks, Mikael!), we are deciding on the best way to
> express the binding independent notions of LOM in XML/RDF.
> Erik Duval
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Architecture Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Mikael Nilsson
> Sent: 13 March 2003 22:44
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Proposed DCMI RDF Schema Changes
> On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 10:41, Phil Barker wrote:
> > I think you mean "x-none"
> I'm afraid not. '"none" shall also be an acceptable value' (IEEE LOM,
> page 11).
> IIRC, the original proposal we made to IMS said x-none for full
> compatibility with RFC3066, but LOM for some reason chose not to use
> > Phil.
> > --
> > Phil Barker Learning Technology Advisor
> > ICBL, School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
> > Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University,
> > Edinburgh, EH14 4AS
> > Tel: 0131 451 3278 Fax: 0131 451 3327
> > Web: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose