Lists Home |
Date Index |
>De : Simon St.Laurent [mailto:email@example.com]
>Envoyé : vendredi 18 janvier 2002 17:43
>À : 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
>Objet : RE: [xml-dev] RDDL (was RE: [xml-dev] Negotiate Out The Noise)
>On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 10:21, Nicolas LEHUEN wrote:
>> Any composite document is orphan with regards to RDDL. So is it an
>> interesting resource description language ? I don't think so.
>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.
A document type cannot be guessed from the list of namespaces it uses. There
should be a way to bind a document to a series of meta-data resources, and
that's what I thought RDDL should be. But it is not, it is only a way to
bind resources to a given namespace. If I followed your logic, to validate a
RDDL document using RDDL, I would load the RDDL for the XHTML, RDDL and
XLink namespaces. Now I don't have one, but three resources directories in
which I'm supposed to find a DTD. Great, I've got three : the DTD for XHTML,
the DTD for RDDL, and the DTD for XLink. How do I make my computer select
the good one, i.e. the RDDL DTD, instead of the two other (and especially
the XHTML one, since the root element html
xmlns="xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" is found in both XHTML and RDDL
>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
>in composite document environments. We need those, RDDL or not, and
>their development will enhance RDDL as well.
You bet it will ! As soon as someone will try to use RDDL for RDDL,
XHTML+SVG, XHTML+MathML, people will begin to discover that a namespace is
not a document type, and that mixing different namespaces in the same
document create new document types, different from each original 'default
document types' possibly associated to the namespace. From there, they will
throw out RDDL and try to think seriously about the problem.