Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 02:54 PM 23/01/02 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>I will count that as a "no" vote for <?rddl-doctype href="..." ?>
>Is that yes,no or neutral on <foo:bar rddl:doctype="...">? ***
I think the term "doctype" and the shorter "type" are both
hopelessly overloaded and encumbered with historical
baggage and should be avoided. So if you wanted to do
this it'd be wise to pick a better name.
I'm probably -1 on the whole thing, because I don't think
we have enough experience yet to know what information is
going to be useful in picking apart and using namespace-
compound documents. TimBL is arguing very cogently that
the namespace of the root element is the largest single
factor in determining what the doc is all about and how
it's going to be processed. It seems plausible that the
XSLT case is the exception that proves this rule.
There's probably a good idea lurking in here somewhere, but
I don't think we're really ready to write the rules down yet.
Also I'm dubious about the notion of building extensions
on top of specs that are not yet widely adopted or proven;
RDDL, despite the existence of partisans here on xml-dev and
over in the W3C, is not exactly an industry bandwagon yet.
If/when it does take off, then we'll learn where the world
really needs extensions. -Tim