[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Leigh,
Leigh Dodds wrote:
>
> As I said in my previous message, I don't see this as a problem with RDDL.
>
> Instead I think it suggests that our approach to writing *schemas* isn't
> flexible enough to deal with documents containing an arbitrary mix of
> namespaces. I should state up front I don't have any answers here,
> I'm just interested in a general discussion.
>
It's a very good point and I think that it's even much more than a
matter of writing flexible schemas (schemas are not the center of the
universe ;=) )!
What the use of writing flexible schemas if the applications are not
also flexible and open to accept the same range of documents than those
flexible schemas?
At the end of the day, it's probably even more than a matter of writing
flexible applications, it's a different perspective on what's a XML
document.
There are applications for which a XML document is a transient stream
used as a closed exchange between two points for which it's OK to use
closed schemas.
Beyong flexible schemas and flexible applicarions, what we need is
*flexible thinking* and my strong feeling is that all the other
applications should look at XML documents as sources of information open
and imprevisible in which they fetch what they need and leave what they
don't need right now for potential later use...
This leads to accept and publish more information in XML documents than
you need it short term and it's probably the most fundamental difference
between being application and document oriented (more fundamental than
discussing over the legitimity of mixed contents)!
Eric
--
Rendez-vous a Paris pour les Electronic Business Days 2002.
http://www.edifrance.org/ebd/index.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
