[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: How could RDDL be distributed ?
- From: Leigh Dodds <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: xml-dev <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:16:57 +0000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: 16 January 2001 14:09
> To: xml-dev
> Subject: Re: How could RDDL be distributed ?
> However, probably still missing something, I wonder of xmlcat documents
> are attached to instance documents.
xmlcat documents (Catalogs) aren't associated directly with instance
documents, except via the Pub/SysId.
It might be worth adding an additional lookup method so that even
without a DOCTYPE, a NS-URI can be used to examine an xmlcat.
> Also wouldn't we be multiplying the layers by using both and wouldn't it
> be better to integrate xmlcat features or vocabulary within RDDL for
> RDDL own purposes ?
Well you could argue this the other way and say because Catalogs
are well-known, and there's also an Oasis committee working on
updating them, that its RDDL thats adding a layer!
I think that the two layers are distinct. xmcat is a location
mechanism, and RDDL is the means to define a directory of resources.
They both have clearly defined roles in my opinion.
IIRC there was some resistance to conflating the two layers early
on the RDDL discussions.
> Also, I think it would be nice to get the 3 options to define the
> association between the instance document and the RDDL (through the
> tools, through the instance documents and through the RDDL).
I'm not sure adding stuff into the instance document is really necessary.
You already have the NS-URI - what else do you really need?
Even with schemas the instance document details are merely 'hints'.