Re: Resource Gloss (Human Readable)

[Jeff Rafter <jeffrafter@earthlink.net>]

I think that Rick and I are approachng the same question for somewhat
different reasons.  Let me lay out my dislike for the extension to XHTML
quickly:

1) Is XHTML the right format to extend (I think the answer is probably yes,
but I call into question the recent threads over the future of XHTML on
XHTML-L@egroups.com)

2) If I were developing a small XML based product that needed to be
validated-- and was forced to include references to the XHTML namespace (and
therefore much larger DTDs) only so that it would be human readable (which
is generally needed but not always) it would definitely be the bottleneck in
the validation process-- as the XHTML namespace would now presumably be
deref'd.

That being said, I feel as though everyone has made their case well (who
could resist Len's monkey argument <grin/>) and so I this point I am ready
to concede as I am not satisfied with the status quo and feel that RDDL is
in general an excellent solution to the *riddle* of namespaces.  My only
hope would be that someday in the future there would be a lightweight RDDL
and then one wrapped in XHTML for those who require human readable
documentation.

Thanks for all of the patience,
Jeff Rafter
Defined Systems