[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>
> Perhaps, but I'm not sure most developers want a 3400-page tome
> explaining (X)HTML, XForms, SVG, RDF, SMIL, MathML, XLink, and
> everything else that can reasonably mash together in the context of a
> web page, and I'm not sure computers want their equivalent of that
> either.
I don't agree that introducing the capabilities for documents
to assert that they belong to a particular named type, and using
a RDDL like mechanism to document that type and point to resources
for processing instances of that type results in massive tomes.
I think namespace designers should be able to future-proof their
designs to allow elements from their namespace to contain and
be contained by elements from yet-to-be-invented namespaces.
They can specify constraints on where that can happen and
document their intention with schemas, RDDL documents, etc.
Document type designers could come along later, and specify an
additional set of constraints on how elements from one or more
namespaces are combined for a more specific intent.
This is not at all the same as specifying *all* the ways
elements from the referenced namespaces might be used
together. There could be any number of different document
types designed using the same two namespaces. Allowing
a document to assert which one(s) it belongs to, by name,
seems like it would help in determining how to best process
it.
Best,
Bill
|
