Re: Resource gloss

[Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>]

Uche Ogbuji wrote:

> > I like XML Namespace Gloss. XNGloss, or whatever.

We might slightly play down the dependency on XML Namespaces, what we really
are describing are resource directories -- so in the interest being as
direct as possible does anyone have a serious opposition to:

Resource Directory Description


> >
> > > I hope Jonathan, Tim and Sean would have a few
> > > spare cycles left as well
> >
> > You bet I have. I look forward to seeing this through 'till the time it
> > ends up as a W3C Recommendation :-)
> > Seriously, I think having <link><resource/></link> in a m12n family is
the
> > best way to go... and the details aren't all that hard to sort out: this
> > thing kind of writes itself.
>
> Yes, I'm not saying this would be a titanic undertaking, but I do think it
> needs a home and an authority.  Probably not W3C.  First of all, Paul
> Grosso mentioned that this is an area where the W3C had thought maybe the
> community could do some work.  Secondly, it's probably too lightweight for
> the W3C.  More a SAX than a DOM (REC) or SOAP (NOTE).

    I would like to see this as an XML-DEV activity for the time being, at
least until we have a fairly solid spec and some implementation code to go
along.

> Thirdly, I think
> the Resource Gloss extensions to XHTML themselves should have an
> "http://xml.org/..." namespace.

    Ideally, but at least I don't have write priviledge to xml.org. In the
mean time we can host the activity on the http://www.openhealth.org/ site.

>
> And, hey, this is one case where no one
> could call foul about the use of HTTP URI in an "official" NSRef.

Right!

Jonathan