Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Jonathan Borden wrote: <snip/> > The 'problem' is that a given document does not define a single document > type, nor does a namespace define a document type, so that a mechanism is > required to indicate which 'type set' a document is intended to belong to. > > e.g. <!DOCTYPE or xsi:schemaLocation="..." > > How might RDDL help? > > Perhaps we could define a _purpose_ to indicate document type: > > http://www.rddl.org/purposes#document-type > > and then the _set_ of all document types an instance is intended to belong > to would be referenced by the set of all rddl:resources that have this > purpose, but whose nature indicates the particular schema definition > language used to define the type. > > We still need a means to connect the instance to the document type set > definition. It would be really nice to use the <!DOCTYPE declaration for > this, but this has already been hardwired to DTDs... and so the Public > Identifier cannot be connected to a RDDL document by this mechanism. > > Perhaps an attribute: > > <root rddl:doctype="....a RDDL directory of 'document types' ..."> I don't particularly like this. For one, the rddl:doctype attribute is essentially a processing directive. I think a PI would be more appropriate. (XML Schema set a bad precedent in this regard, IMHO.) I'm also not convinced that a specialized attribute or PI and specialized purpose are needed. I still like the XLink-in-a-PI idea I tossed out awhile ago, but oh well. Instead of yet another PI/attribute for one narrow purpose of associating one narrow type of resource with a document, why not a PI that can associate a linkbase with a document? That linkbase could have an extended link associating outbound links with a DTD public ID or system ID. Then you can associate resources with a DOCTYPE in a way that affords greater flexibility than RDDL. The linkbase could also associate links with namespaces (as RDDL does) or other resources, even non-XML resources.
|
