Lists Home |
Date Index |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul T [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: 17 January 2002 04:07
> To: Michael Brennan; Simon St.Laurent
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [xml-dev] Negotiate Out The Noise: (Was RE: SV: SV: [xml-dev]
> XML=WAP? And DOA?)
> Could you please try the:
> ( it's a namespace for XSLT )
> Could you please tell me what ( particular ) RDDL document
> would you like to place there instead of aswesome
> current content?
I'd hardly described one sentence as 'awesome'. How about
some useful pointers to XSLT, stylesheets to pretty print
XSLT, etc. That would be *much* better in my book.
Here's a good example:
> (There is no examples in that RDDL paper. Maybe
> there are, but they're hidden.)
> OK, OK, I tried Google and I found one.
(I see that Tim Bray presented a paper on RDDL at
XML Europe 2001, but can't find the full paper online?)
> (When looking at RDDL file itself,
> note verbosity and cut&paste - not because
> the author is a moron. It is because of RDDL design.
> Beloved W3C's style )
Hmmm. RDDL consists of exactly one new element which
has a handful of xlink attributes, not all of which are
required. How's this verbose?
Or are you claiming that XHTML is verbose?
> It is obvious for me that RDDL is a joke. Like it is
> possible to have just one XSLT stylesheet for all
I included an example in my tutorial that demonstrates
having several XSLT stylesheets linked from one RDDL
For XSLT, use the xlink:arcrole attribute to indicate the
namespace of the resulting document.
> The whole idea of namespaces was to support the
> *mixes* of 'receipes' with 'something else'
> RDDL is plain working *against* the original goal.
No. No problems with the assertion, just the wrong
RDDL associates resources with namespaces, it doesn't
have anything to say about documents with multiple
namespaces -- although you can still retrieve resources
(or read documentation ) for those namespaces if there's
an associated RDDL document.
It neither mandates single namespace documents, nor
causes any difficulties when working with multiple namespace documents.
So it is not working against the goal of the Namespace REC.
> Current RDDL is a misleading paper...
What precisely is misleading? I found the spec very simple and
elegant, I didn't notice any sleight-of-hand.
> 'Appropriate' stylesheet is a very questionable entity.
> There is no 'appropriate' stylsheet that fits all
> possible 'future' situations for some 'tag'.
No argument there. 'Appropriate' could be defined as
"I need a stylesheet to turn vocab X into vocab Y, is
there an stylesheet in the directory with an arcrole for vocab
Y'. If there is, I can use it. Excellent, RDDL has brought me
some real benefits. If it there isn't, then RDDL hasn't cost me
>... Locating Schema would give almost nothing,
No, it'll give you the schema.
This seems particularly useful in circumstances such as John
Cowan described in the original thread, where he asserts that
a document conforms to a schema, but doesn't reference it
directly. I might want to test that assertion :)
> So what we need is to find some documentation about some
> set of tags? Just publish the human readable document at the
> end of namespace URI ;-)
Fine. But if you want to make some machine readable resources
available, where should you put them? Why not drop a rddl:resource
element into your documentation. How hard is that?
If you're suggesting an alternate mechanism then that feels
more 'verbose' or complicated that is necessary.
> In my opinion, RDDL is a joke. For 'human' - who
> cares about anything better, than HTML page?
And that's effectively what they get when they look
at a RDDL document.
> The *real* problem is how to make
> *computers* to cooperate with each other,
> in a sense, that my computer 'cooperates' with
> some computer in Macromedia, when MS IE
> fetches the Macromedia plugin, when
> encountering an 'unknown tag'.
Here I disagree, what if I want to use a different
implementation of a plug-in. If the browser were RDDL
aware it could present me with some choices.
>The problem, which is 'solved' by RDDL
>is too hypothetical to be of a serious value
>and as a bonus it contradicts the basic design
>idea of 'namespaces'!
I find this assertion to be ironic, seeing as RDDL itself
makes good use of multiple namespaces to achieve it's
> No more letters from me on RDDL. Some people
> use it. This is fine, but when I've used the word RDDL,
> I was *not* talking about current RDDL ( neither was
> Len talking about current RDF, I think ), I'm very sorry
> to use the RDDL buzzword and I would try never use
> it again.
Fine, but I'm responding anyway, so the archives contain
a more objective viewpoint.