[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: RDDL(2): new version up

• To: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Subject: Re: RDDL(2): new version up
• From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
• Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 17:49:19 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1074458181.24853.364.camel@delleric>
• References: <0494A708-49EF-11D8-B62D-000A95BA5A2C@o...> <1074458181.24853.364.camel@delleric>

On Jan 18, 2004, at 3:36 PM, Eric van der Vlist wrote:

> On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 20:46, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>> I've posted a new version of RDDL (2.0) at http://www.rddl.org/
>>
>> Changes:
>>
>> -This version uses Tim Bray's non-XLink syntax which the TAG seems to
>> be solidifying on, and for which I haven't heard any opposition to for
>> at least 6 months. i.e..
>
> Sorry, I am not following the TAG any longer and had totally missed  
> this
> proposal.

You may wish to make your issues known to the TAG because for the last  
year or so that's where the vast majority of RDDL discussion has  
occured.

>
>> 	<a rddl:nature="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
>> 		rddl:purpose="..."
>> 		href="foo.html">Example</a>
>
> I feel uneasy with this syntax that seems broken to me.
>
> When I write:
>
> <rddl:resource id="xsd-schema"
> xlink:arcrole="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#schema-validation"
> xlink:role="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xlink:title="W3C XML
> Schema for examplotron" xlink:href="examplotron.xsd"  
> xlink:type="simple"
> xlink:show="none" xlink:embed="none">
> <div class="resource">
>   <h4>W3C XML Schema for examplotron</h4>
>   <p>This W3C XML Schema (Proposed Recommendation, 16 March 2001) <a  
> href="examplotron.xsd">schema</a> describes the examplotron vocabulary  
> and can be imported in W3C XML Schema to validate examplotron  
> schemas.</p>
> </div>
> </rddl:resource>
>
> I define a link between the rddl:resource fragment (ie the full
> description of the schema) and the schema.
>
> With the new syntax, if I write:
>
> <div class="resource">
>   <h4>W3C XML Schema for examplotron</h4>
>   <p>This W3C XML Schema (Proposed Recommendation, 16 March 2001) <a  
> href="examplotron.xsd" rddl:nature="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"  
> rddl:purpose="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#schema-validation">schema</ 
> a> describes the examplotron vocabulary and can be imported in W3C XML  
> Schema to validate examplotron schemas.</p>
> </div>
>
> I get a link between the <a/> element and the schema which is
> significantly poorer than the previous one (in this example, the  
> content
> of the <a/> element is almost useless). And I can't embed the whole
> definition in my link because 1) the content model of the <a/> element
> doesn't allow it, b) it would be displayed as a ugly long link.

I see your objection. Would the following be acceptable:

<div rddl:nature="..."
	rddl:purpose="...">
...
</div>

alternatively:

<rddl:resource
	rddl:nature="..."
	rddl:purpose="...">
....
</rddl:resource>

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: RDDL(2): new version up
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: fetching the text value of an element inside anelement
• Next by Date: Re: RDDL(2): new version up
• Previous by thread: Re: RDDL(2): new version up
• Next by thread: Re: RDDL(2): new version up
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread