[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Brennan" <Michael_Brennan@Allegis.com>
To: "'Dare Obasanjo'" <kpako@yahoo.com>; "Jonathan Borden"
<jborden@mediaone.net>; <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>; "Tim Bray"
<tbray@textuality.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 2:35 PM
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Strategies for a lowly XML document
>
> > The addition of that PI would solve one of the issues I had
> > with RDDL and as
> > for the other (no support for URNs and poor support for none
> > HTTP URIs), I'd
> > go with something similar to Paul T's suggestion of an XML
> > metadata repository
> > as described at
> >
> > http://www.pault.com/nsresolve
>
> The extended link approach I've advocated solves the lack of support for
> URNs.
I probably missed your mention of this in the flood of traffic about this
topic that has hit my inbox so could you post a link to it in the archive or
describe it again if you don't mind?
Thanks.
> (Quite apart from that, you can use XML Catalog to resolve a URN to a
> URL. Why reinvent the wheel to solve problems for which there are already
> simple solutions?)
I just looked at the XML Catalog spec[0] on the OASIS site at it does look
like that particular wheel has already been invented as well. Thus I am
curious as to why this discussion has been going on for so long when it looks
like the combination of RDDL + doctype PI + XML Catalog solves the general
problems with obtaining metadata about an XML document.
> I mean no offense, but this model Paul T is proposing is
> sheer bullshit. A type system for resources? Not anyone can create a type --
> they have to be "common and validated"? A model based on centrally managed
> and controlled repositories? Making derefencing a URI a virtual offsense?
> Everything he is proposing flies in the face of the architecture of the web.
>
> Sorry. I'm not buying into that. Not now, not ever.
>
> Simplify, man! Simplify! The goal here should be to make things simple, and
> you do that by building upon concepts that are already familiar to most web
> developers. RDDL got that right. It builds on hyperlinking and dereferencing
> URLs, which every web developer understands. Those that insist a namespace
> URI doesn't mean anything, it's just a name, simply don't get it. It
> *should* mean something. Otherwise, we are subverting the success that the
> web has enjoyed so far because we are making it too abstract and esoteric
> for the average web developer.
I took to his suggestion primarily because it is similar (at least
superficially) with what people go through to register and locate web services
with UDDI and thus would be familiar to web developers especially with the big
push towards web services all the big software houses are making.
> Every counter proposal I've seen gets this flat out wrong. It feels like
> some people want to take a VW Bug and turn it into a Hummer. Have you
> noticed that there are far more people drivng VW Bugs on the road then there
> are driving Hummers?
This statement completely puzzled me since it seemed quite untrue until I
realized that you don't live in Atlanta. :)
[0] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/entity/spec-2001-08-06.html
--
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #112
I will not rely entirely upon "totally reliable" spells that can be
neutralized by relatively inconspicuous talismans.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
|
