Lists Home |
Date Index |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Bray" <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Re: Flexible Schemas (was RE: [xml-dev] The task to
be solved by RDDL)
> At 01:55 PM 19/01/02 +0100, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
> >As I've said three of four times now, show me the algorithm that will
> >the URL of the RDDL document for this document : http://www.rddl.org/.
> >is a FONDAMENTAL problem with RDDL.
> 1. Ascertain the namespace of the root element
> 2. Dereference that namespace
> In the case of that document, the namespace of the root element is
> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml. Dereferencing this reveals that
> there is no RDDL posted for XHTML. What a pity.
But the document is not an XHTML document !!! It is a RDDL document ! The
namespace of the root element has nothing to do with the document type. What
a pity, RDDL cannot be used to 'recognize' itself !
> But in general your question is slightly mis-phrased. RDDL isn't
> designed to be associated with a *document* but with a *namespace*
> which in practical terms means an element or attribute. Thus when
> I read through the document you reference, eventually I come to
> an element that's in the namespace http://www.rddl.org/ - this
> namespace is lucky enough to have a RDDL directory available.
> As many people have pointed out, modern XML resources can
> have lots of different namespaces. RDDL is designed to help
> in the case where you don't know about one or more of them. -Tim
OK so now I know that we are perfectly in phase on the purpose of RDDL. So
please, please, could you mention in the RDDL specs that RDDL should not be
used as a way to find schemas for a document, because namespaces have
nothing to do with document types ? Could we just agree on this, and then
try to move on resolving the bigger problem of associating meta-data to
document types ?