[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Well, it appears to be really surprising, what's going on
with RDDL, I was not expecting to find any new
information on RDDL, but this letter contains some.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
> > collisions. If I'm supposed to use RDDL to find the proper schemas or
> > stylesheets or whatever, where can I find a RDDL document for this XHTML
> > document that contains tags from the MathML namespace ?
>
> Excellent question. Henry Thompson has included such RDDL support in the
XSV
> validator.
This means that RDDL already started to pollute *schemas* ? Sweet.
> > The problem is that with
> > namespace-centric view of RDDL just prevents document types that can mix
> > tags from different namespace from having an associated RDDL document
(if
> it
> > doesn't, show me the URL where I can find it), resulting in a big hole
in
> > the practical usability of RDDL.
>
> No, I believe Henry's implementation demonstrates that RDDL can be used in
> such multinamespace situations. If RDDL were not useful in such
situations,
> I agree that this would be a serious limitation.
Henry's implementation of what? How is XSV related to the paper,
published on www.rddl.org? Of course, it is not easy to understand
what your're talking about, because there is no materials on this
'solution' ( just a short comment that it is 'implemented' on
XSV's page) , but your claim looks very much questionable.
I guess that what was implemented was to make a validator
to fetch the schema from RDDL Place, when switching from
one namespace to another or something. The implications of this
are so *huge*, that I would not even start explaining why it is a
bad thing to do. So it is no longer 'just documentation with a
few utility links in it'. It is a hidden extension to schemas, for
example.
Why that XSV validator has to do something with RDDL?
Do I understand right that to start actually using RDDL
one should now stick not only to RDDL 'tool' but
also to particular schema validator (which is now XSV)?
How is this different from the lock-in that RDDL was supposed
to *avoid*?
I want my name to be immediately removed from the list of
contributors to RDDL from rddl.org website.
Many thanks.
Rgds.Paul.
PS. It appears that people, who write articles about RDDL,
are already providing the general public with misleading
information about RDDL (exactly, like it was with
XML Namespaces. As we should remember, each
and every XML book or article was explicitly saying that
Namespaces URLs "point to nothing" and that's the
idea of them. Which is no longer true.)
I don't think that's a sign of bad will from all the performers,
but obviously, when some thing happens two times in a row
it should mean something.
|
