[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 16:08, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
> 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 ?
Speaking for myself only, I find the notion of "document type" to be a
mistake in itself, an odd relic of programmers' expectations of
tightly-controlled data formats. If you find it more useful to
categorize every acceptable combination of parts from different
namespaces, you're welcome to do so, of course.
Just keep in mind that a few of us find "the bigger problem of
associating meta-data to document types" to be much less interesting and
less useful than "what is this namespace supposed to tell me?"
Guess I'd better get started on the Perversely Oriented Namespace
Datatyping (POND) project soon.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
