Re: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
Nicolas Lehuen wrote: > Well, I hope I won't be as flamed as Paul, but I have a few remarks too that > make me reluctant to use RDDL. And I hope that I would never flame anyone for asking a specific question, nor for making a specific suggestion. > > 1) Scalability. With only a few arcroles (or purposes ?), a single RDDL > document is readable. What if the number of associated resource grows ? What > is the benefit for a human reader to have to download a 500K document to > have a description of ... That might be a problem if you were to have a huge namespace. Then again your schemas would also be huge, so efficiency would be a concern regardless of RDDL. > > 2) ... a description of what ? A namespace ? If RDDL describes a namespace, > then let's be careful when providing arcroles for DTD and schemas. The case > where one namespace = 1 DTD and 1 schema document for each schema language > that you want to support is, like Paul wrote, a dangerous degradation of the > namespace purpose. So are you saying that a nature and a purpose is not enough? Do we need 3 URIs to describe a resource. What axis is the third URI? Do you have an example. Would such an example be common? I don't have any authority on the subject (and I'm sure > you people won't miss the opportunity to prove it to me), but I firmly > believe that the interest of namespace resides in allowing tags from > different namespaces to be mixed in the same document without name > collisions. If I'm supposed to use RDDL to find the proper schemas or > stylesheets or whatever, where can I find a RDDL document for this XHTML > document that contains tags from the MathML namespace ? Excellent question. Henry Thompson has included such RDDL support in the XSV validator. At the XHTML > namespace URL, or at the MathML namespace URL ? It's funny to notice that > the same problem exist for RDDL document themselves, since they mix the > (X)HTML, RDDL and XLink namespaces... The problem is that with > namespace-centric view of RDDL just prevents document types that can mix > tags from different namespace from having an associated RDDL document (if it > doesn't, show me the URL where I can find it), resulting in a big hole in > the practical usability of RDDL. No, I believe Henry's implementation demonstrates that RDDL can be used in such multinamespace situations. If RDDL were not useful in such situations, I agree that this would be a serious limitation. > > 3) It is a bit related to the scalability issue, but how do you handle > internationalisation ? RDDL contains human-readable text, that's fine, but > not everybody can or want to read English. So will you have all possible > translation of the human-readable text in the SAME RDDL document ? RDDL does provide for internationalization via the xml:lang attribute. I would not claim that this solves all internationalization problems, then again what happens when a French browser hits a German page (there must be a punch line in there somewhere). RDDL is certainly no worse than the basic HTML/HTTP Web infrastructure in this case. Jonathan
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