RE: How could RDDL be distributed ?

[Miles Sabin <MSabin@interx.com>]

Tim Bray wrote,
> Miles Sabin wrote:
> > Actually I think it's simply two different problems which 
> > might have related solutions,
> >
> > 1. Allow for local overriding of authoritative resources.
> > 
> > 2. Allow for distribution and replication of authoritative
> > resources.
>
> Neither of which are specific to RDDL.  I assume everyone
> agrees with this.  In the general case, these are just 
> consequences of dealing with URIs, n'est-ce pas? -T

Agreed that it's not specific to RDDL. And probably everyone
agrees on that.

But this isn't the general URI case. We have a very specific
looming issue (that's my hunch anyway) of large chunks of web
infrastructure depending (perhaps unwisely) on being able to
retrieve resources on the ends of particular well-known URIs on
a regular basis ... a lot of them hosted by the W3C, a lot of
them hosted elsewhere. I predict server meltdown.

You could argue that people who build XML applications 
_shouldn't_ fetch a fresh copy of the corresponding XML 
DTD/Schema every time they parse a fresh document instance. And 
you'd be right, but that won't stop people doing it.

That's my justification for a new protocol. But I think that
there's also a very close connection with some of the areas we've
been discussing here wrt, RDDL and xmlcatalog. Both allow for
local overriding via what is to all intents and purposes a
local cache. I suggest we at least look at whether there's
enough similarity between the two scenarios to make it worth
coming up with a uniform solution.

Cheers,


Miles

-- 
Miles Sabin                               InterX
Internet Systems Architect                5/6 Glenthorne Mews
+44 (0)20 8817 4030                       London, W6 0LJ, England
msabin@interx.com                         http://www.interx.com/