RE: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 11:09, Nicolas LEHUEN wrote: > A document type cannot be guessed from the list of namespaces it uses. I don't really believe in such things as document types - though I suppose you're correct that a mere list of namespaces is inadequate if you really want to nail down precisely what type of document it might be, since the list doesn't define the possible interactions. Only the document itself really does that... > There > should be a way to bind a document to a series of meta-data resources, and > that's what I thought RDDL should be. I gave that a go once with XPDL: http://www.simonstl.com/projects/xpdl/ There's also the XHTML meta tag and its cousins if you want to go that route. > But it is not, it is only a way to > bind resources to a given namespace. If I followed your logic, to validate a > RDDL document using RDDL, I would load the RDDL for the XHTML, RDDL and > XLink namespaces. Now I don't have one, but three resources directories in > which I'm supposed to find a DTD. Great, I've got three : the DTD for XHTML, > the DTD for RDDL, and the DTD for XLink. How do I make my computer select > the good one, i.e. the RDDL DTD, instead of the two other (and especially > the XHTML one, since the root element html That's not a problem of RDDL - that's a general validation issue. Schema mathematics (except for RELAX NG) are currently wretched. I'd like to see RDDL files contain modules which only describe their particular namespace, not the entire concoction. Using those is currently difficult, however, so we're stuck with what we've got. Incremental progress, not the perfect solution you appear to be seeking. > xmlns="xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" is found in both XHTML and RDDL > ?). Yep. That's the current sad state of the schema art. > You bet it will ! As soon as someone will try to use RDDL for RDDL, > XHTML+SVG, XHTML+MathML, people will begin to discover that a namespace is > not a document type, and that mixing different namespaces in the same > document create new document types, different from each original 'default > document types' possibly associated to the namespace. From there, they will > throw out RDDL and try to think seriously about the problem. Nah. Maybe they'll get rid of their expectations about schemas and/or the whole fuzzy notion of document types instead. It sounds like you want a complete solution. I don't think there are any complete solutions in XML, just a box of parts. Change your expectations, and you might be a lot happier. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com
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