Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Well, it appears to be really surprising, what's going on with RDDL, I was not expecting to find any new information on RDDL, but this letter contains some. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...> > > 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. This means that RDDL already started to pollute *schemas* ? Sweet. > > 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. Henry's implementation of what? How is XSV related to the paper, published on www.rddl.org? Of course, it is not easy to understand what your're talking about, because there is no materials on this 'solution' ( just a short comment that it is 'implemented' on XSV's page) , but your claim looks very much questionable. I guess that what was implemented was to make a validator to fetch the schema from RDDL Place, when switching from one namespace to another or something. The implications of this are so *huge*, that I would not even start explaining why it is a bad thing to do. So it is no longer 'just documentation with a few utility links in it'. It is a hidden extension to schemas, for example. Why that XSV validator has to do something with RDDL? Do I understand right that to start actually using RDDL one should now stick not only to RDDL 'tool' but also to particular schema validator (which is now XSV)? How is this different from the lock-in that RDDL was supposed to *avoid*? I want my name to be immediately removed from the list of contributors to RDDL from rddl.org website. Many thanks. Rgds.Paul. PS. It appears that people, who write articles about RDDL, are already providing the general public with misleading information about RDDL (exactly, like it was with XML Namespaces. As we should remember, each and every XML book or article was explicitly saying that Namespaces URLs "point to nothing" and that's the idea of them. Which is no longer true.) I don't think that's a sign of bad will from all the performers, but obviously, when some thing happens two times in a row it should mean something.
|
