[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-sc hema)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Jonathan Borden <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 12:20:43 -0500
Right. I think that's what I was saying.
RDDL is a language in the system, not the
system. Use of RDDL makes life easier
but can't be required. XLinks are a little
lower in the food chain; above namespaces
but below RDDL. One could conceivably
use a different application of XLinks
and do the same thing. Why, well who
knows, but the levels are important to
understand. We can't legislate what
a namespace URI resolves to because a
namespace URI doesn't have to resolve.
An XLink does, yes/no?
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
It is namespaces that are the core part of XML. RDDL provides people and
software a reasonable way to find out about and use namespace related
It turns out that an XHTML document is a great way for people to find out
about a namespace, and XLink allows software to discover similar