Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 12:14 23/01/2002 -0800, Bill Lindsey wrote:
At 1014 23/01/2002 -0500, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> > <DocSet rddl:doctype="http://whatever/DocSet">
> > <doc1 rddl:doctype="http://whatever/doctype1">
> > :
> > </doc1>
> > <doc2 rddl:doctype="http://whatever/doctype2">
> > :
> > </doc2>
> > </DocSet>
>What's wrong with:
Actually I wrote that (and I suspect that Elliotte disagrees with it).
I was not trying to debate the exact form of the attributes which associate
a doctype with an element (sub-)tree, but making the point that a PI based
solution is unsatisfactory if you ever need to be able to package documents
On the more specific question of the form of the attribute, I think it
would be best if it were added at a more fundamental level, e.g.
The notion of a doctype (if it's useful at all, and I'm still open minded
on that) is independent of RDDL, just as the notion of a namespace is.
RDDL provides a good way of associating meta-data with a resource named by
a URL, whether that resource be a namespace or a doctype (or anything else,
for that matter).