Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 16:55 19/01/2002 -0500, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>At 10:58 AM +0100 1/19/02, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
>>-- namespace-centricity, limiting RDDL to describing namespace meta-data,
>>whereas what we really need is to describe document meta-data (think of a
>>DOCTYPE declaration but not limited to DTDs).
>The you need something other than RDDL. This is not what RDDL was meant
>to do, nor did RDDL ever claim to do this. A RDDL document describes a
>namespace, not a document. What you propose might be useful in and of
>itself, but it would replace RDDL.
I disagree -- there is nothing in RDDL itself which prevents it being used
to describe the resources associated with a document type. The problem is
that XML has no built in way of specifying the resource which is that
document type -- the system identifier in the DOCTYPE declaration is too
strongly tied to DTD retrieval to be usable for the purpose.
I think the W3C takes the view that there is nothing interesting to be said
about a document type as a whole which is not simply an assembly of the
statements you can make about the element types in that document. I'm not
sure whether I agree with this, but it's not an RDDL issue.
I suppose one could try to establish a convention that, on the root element
of a document, something like
specifies the type of the document as a whole. If this were done, it would
make perfect sense for this dt:doctype URI to point at an RDDL document.