Re: Namespace or document gloss?

[Edd Dumbill <edd@usefulinc.com>]

On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 09:17:19PM +0000, Miles Sabin wrote:
> Dan Brickley wrote in another thread,
> > FWIW I'll be putting XHTML and RDF at most of my namespaces and 
> > could really do with a vocabulary for pointing to Java classes, 
> > XML schemata, public keys, XSLTs and suchlike to include
> > alongside.
> 
> Many of the things Dan mentions here look as tho' they'd be
> equally appropriate as resouces related to a complete document
> instance ... so the association might be doc<->resources, not
> just namespace<->resources.
> 
> I don't see any particular reason why that should affect the
> content of a gloss doc, but it pretty clearly means that using
> namespace URIs for making the association won't do the whole
> job.

I was thinking along similar lines, too.  As indeed Paul Grosso observed
earlier there are elements of this that fit with the "XML Packaging"
thing.

Maybe all that's needed is a way (PI or attribute) for a document
instance to indicate a relevant resource bundle (or whatever it gets
called...) -- or maybe documents can incorporate inline aspects from the
resource vocabulary.

Either way, I'm enormously happy to see this activity underway.

-- Edd