Lists Home |
Date Index |
Tim Bray wrote:
> At 11:01 AM 23/01/02 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> >Looking at 3 in particular, RDDL in its current form assists the task of
> >3.1 and a RDDL PI would assist the task of 3.2. Would this be useful?
> ><?rddl-doctype href="http://example.org/some-rddl-description.html" ?>
> Blecch. Assuming you believe that this is a good idea, stick it
> in a namespaced tribute required to be on the root element. Then
> you can get at it through all the existing APIs and address it
> with XPath and so on.
> PIs are for application-specific processing IMHO. This is not
> application-specific at all. -Tim
Point of clarification:
I will count that as a "no" vote for <?rddl-doctype href="..." ?>
Is that yes,no or neutral on <foo:bar rddl:doctype="...">? ***
note: I remain truly ambivalent about the issue of document types, and am
hoping for a really persuasive argument one way or the other along the lines
of "If a document lands on my desk, this approach is not useful"
*** who refuses to divulge the exact algorithm used to tally xml-dev votes