> 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.
I fail to see the logic of that. RFC 3066 is hardly XML/RDF centric. It
isn't even web-centric.
Of course x- tags should be avoided if possible, and at least "none" isn't a
valid RFC 3066 code (nor ISO 639) so there should be no confusion. I would
be a bit nervous of a successor to RFC 3066 allowing 4-letter primary
subtags, and hence leading to confusion.