[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
DOCTYPES are fine for DTDs as long as you accept
extensibility in any instance that includes the
DOCTYPE definition and/or own the system reference.
A PUBLIC id specifies the owner organinization and
the system ID tells you where to locate your version
of that. Why doesn't that work? Are you really
looking for someone to make your choices for you?
For schemas, nyet. But for the Schema Definition
language itself, da. I don't know what RELAX NG
is using for this. Anyone?
Levels. Agreements are usually layered if negotiated.
Blind exchanges should not be the way the web works.
And if you plan to send the semantics with the message,
Java and PDF are there to serve your every need. :-)
Why is this debate still being held every year?
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:jlowery@scenicsoft.com]
Which argues for a domain authority, which is why we have a proliferation of
vocabulary standardization organizations in OASIS and elsewhere.
What are they using to indicate that entity x in in domain y? Namespaces?
Naughty naughty. Doctypes? I don't think so. There is no universally
accepted mechanism. Can that mechanism be contrived in XML? I think so. I
think it has to.
> If you resolve a namespace into something, then that must
> contain both a syntax and
> a mapping of that syntax to a model to be useful, or you are
> stuck in text
> processing rather than information.
And if both models are in XML format, I think all the better.
|
