[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 20:46, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> I've posted a new version of RDDL (2.0) at http://www.rddl.org/
>
> Changes:
>
> -This version uses Tim Bray's non-XLink syntax which the TAG seems to
> be solidifying on, and for which I haven't heard any opposition to for
> at least 6 months. i.e..
Sorry, I am not following the TAG any longer and had totally missed this
proposal.
> <a rddl:nature="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";
> rddl:purpose="..."
> href="foo.html">Example</a>
I feel uneasy with this syntax that seems broken to me.
When I write:
<rddl:resource id="xsd-schema"
xlink:arcrole="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#schema-validation";
xlink:role="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"; xlink:title="W3C XML
Schema for examplotron" xlink:href="examplotron.xsd" xlink:type="simple"
xlink:show="none" xlink:embed="none">
<div class="resource">
<h4>W3C XML Schema for examplotron</h4>
<p>This W3C XML Schema (Proposed Recommendation, 16 March 2001) <a href="examplotron.xsd">schema</a> describes the examplotron vocabulary and can be imported in W3C XML Schema to validate examplotron schemas.</p>
</div>
</rddl:resource>
I define a link between the rddl:resource fragment (ie the full
description of the schema) and the schema.
With the new syntax, if I write:
<div class="resource">
<h4>W3C XML Schema for examplotron</h4>
<p>This W3C XML Schema (Proposed Recommendation, 16 March 2001) <a href="examplotron.xsd" rddl:nature="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"; rddl:purpose="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#schema-validation";>schema</a> describes the examplotron vocabulary and can be imported in W3C XML Schema to validate examplotron schemas.</p>
</div>
I get a link between the <a/> element and the schema which is
significantly poorer than the previous one (in this example, the content
of the <a/> element is almost useless). And I can't embed the whole
definition in my link because 1) the content model of the <a/> element
doesn't allow it, b) it would be displayed as a ugly long link.
> - The syntax *is* simpler which is a Very Good Thing
> - XLink does not appear to have achieved traction
> - Because the syntax is substantially changed I've bumped the Version
> number up to 2.0 --- perhaps we ought use a different *namespace name*
> e.g. http://www.rddl.org/rddl2# -- let's hear discussion on this.
Hmmm... that means that right now, all the existing RDDL documents have
a URI which describes a totally different vocabulary! That doesn't seem
right either.
Eric
> - A new DTD, RELAXNG schema and RDDL->RDF XSLT are referenced in the
> http://www.rddl.org/ document (which serves as its own "Hello World"
> example)
> -This version contains relatively minor edits from the version on Tim's
> site (called rddl4)
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
--
If you have a XML document, you have its schema.
http://examplotron.org
Upcoming XML schema languages tutorial:
- Santa Clara -half day- (15/03/2004) http://masl.to/?J24916E96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
