• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Extension and media type and RDDL and document types
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:41:05 -0500
• In-reply-to: <015001c1a3c8$5a4ce4e0$4bc8a8c0@A...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306DF628A@HQ5> <017001c1a3b6$39e0e560$0301a8c0@n...> <015001c1a3c8$5a4ce4e0$4bc8a8c0@A...>

On Tuesday 22 January 2002 11:42 pm, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> This is because the document type is most useful when creating
> and maintaining a document, not when processing it downstream,
> when we have all the advantages of namespaces, MIME media
> types, file extensions, stylesheet PIs.

I think this is an important point. most of the discussion about 
namespaces is vis-a-vis processing, and again, there are any number of 
different ways to interpret the data after creation. 

During creation, as Rick notes, is when the authors *intent* with 
regards namespace, is crucial.

• References:
  • RE: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: RDDL and document types was : Re: The task to be solved by RDDL.
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
  • Extension and media type and RDDL and document types
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Generality of HTTP
• Next by Date: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Previous by thread: Extension and media type and RDDL and document types
• Next by thread: Re: Extension and media type and RDDL and document types
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread