Re: Resource Gloss (Human Readable)
From: Jeff Rafter <jeffrafter@e...> >... The only response to the question of whether or not the > format *should* be human readable was a quick flame. As an end-user looking > from the outside in-- it would seem much more logical to include a human > readable description of a resource simply within the catalog (used loosely) > of associated resources rather than making the document itself readable. Unless it supports existing practise, I odon't see how it can fly. In other words, we cannot attempt to *mandate* that an http: * namespace URIef retirieves an XHTML document. he people who want to retrieve a schema (i.e. the people who only want to provide a schema on the net, or the people who want the schema to be the first and fastsest related resource to be retrieved) will simply choose to ignore it: unless our system supports existing uses, I don't think it improves matters. So I think we need to supprot document-(namespace URI)->XML Schema-(xl:resource)->ResourceDirectory->other resources as well as Tim's preferred doumnet-(namespace RI)->ResourceDirectory->other resources including XML Schema and (to push the hobbyhorse) socument-(namespaceURI)->implied ResourceDirectory-(namespaceURI)->XML Schema Which is not to say that Tim's prefeerred chain is not the best practise one for public namespaces. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format