OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] RDDL (was RE: [xml-dev] Negotiate Out The Noise)

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]


Somewhat depends on the real components and what 
kinds of rendering behaviors that have to be 
implemented, the issue of behavioral fidelity, 
and so on.  For example, consider a mix of 
SVG (2D vectors) in X3D (3D vectors) in an 
HTML host. MS tried something like that in 
the Chrome project.  Now we have, as JB pointes 
out, MS behaviors.

Reliability and behavioral fidelity are twins. 
This sort of thing really outs in real time 
3D rendering systems.  The abstract idea of 
namespaced composite vocabularies is great; 
I am wondering if it is a concept that works 
fine for data systems that do the sort of thing 
relational dbs do with tables, but falls apart 
the closer one gets to the renderer in the 


-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]

Processors can load multiple RDDL documents as necessary for the
namespaces contained in a document.  Is the algorithmic work difficult
when the particular schemas for each namespace don't support any notion
of modularization?  Sure.  Is that RDDL's problem?  I don't think it can
be RDDL's problem, nor do I think there's a good way to resolve those
issues through RDDL itself.

On the other hand, I hope the existence of RDDL gets people out of the
notion that a namespace is a complete vocabulary and drives them to
design tools - schemas, software, whatever - that are capable of working
in composite document environments.  We need those, RDDL or not, and
their development will enhance RDDL as well.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS