Re: Resource Gloss (Human Readable)

[Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>]

From: Jeff Rafter <jeffrafter@earthlink.net>

>...  The only response to the question of whether or not the
> format *should* be human readable was a quick flame.  As an end-user
looking
> from the outside in-- it would seem much more logical to include a human
> readable description of a resource simply within the catalog (used
loosely)
> of associated resources rather than making the document itself readable.

Unless it supports existing practise, I odon't see how it can fly. In other
words, we cannot attempt to *mandate* that an http: * namespace URIef
retirieves an XHTML document. he people who want to retrieve a schema (i.e.
the people who only want to provide a schema on the net, or the people who
want the schema to be the first and fastsest related resource to be
retrieved) will simply choose to ignore it: unless our system supports
existing uses, I don't think it improves matters.

So I think we need to supprot
   document-(namespace URI)->XML
Schema-(xl:resource)->ResourceDirectory->other resources
as well as Tim's preferred
   doumnet-(namespace RI)->ResourceDirectory->other resources including XML
Schema
 and (to push the hobbyhorse)
 socument-(namespaceURI)->implied ResourceDirectory-(namespaceURI)->XML
Schema

Which is not to say that Tim's prefeerred chain is not the best practise one
for public namespaces.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe