Lists Home |
Date Index |
Jonathan Borden wrote:
> The 'problem' is that a given document does not define a single document
> type, nor does a namespace define a document type, so that a mechanism is
> required to indicate which 'type set' a document is intended to belong to.
> e.g. <!DOCTYPE or xsi:schemaLocation="..."
> How might RDDL help?
> Perhaps we could define a _purpose_ to indicate document type:
> and then the _set_ of all document types an instance is intended to belong
> to would be referenced by the set of all rddl:resources that have this
> purpose, but whose nature indicates the particular schema definition
> language used to define the type.
> We still need a means to connect the instance to the document type set
> definition. It would be really nice to use the <!DOCTYPE declaration for
> this, but this has already been hardwired to DTDs... and so the Public
> Identifier cannot be connected to a RDDL document by this mechanism.
> Perhaps an attribute:
> <root rddl:doctype="....a RDDL directory of 'document types' ...">
I don't particularly like this. For one, the rddl:doctype attribute is
essentially a processing directive. I think a PI would be more
appropriate. (XML Schema set a bad precedent in this regard, IMHO.) I'm
also not convinced that a specialized attribute or PI and specialized
purpose are needed.
I still like the XLink-in-a-PI idea I tossed out awhile ago, but oh
well. Instead of yet another PI/attribute for one narrow purpose of
associating one narrow type of resource with a document, why not a PI
that can associate a linkbase with a document? That linkbase could have
an extended link associating outbound links with a DTD public ID or
system ID. Then you can associate resources with a DOCTYPE in a way that
affords greater flexibility than RDDL. The linkbase could also associate
links with namespaces (as RDDL does) or other resources, even non-XML