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

RE: Treaty of Wulai

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 15:21:02 -0600

Working through holiday mail... so out of sync.

Concur.  And yes, we are back to the same 
conclusion as the last long thread on the 
subject.  All one can expect by dereferencing 
is a resource of some type and the debate is 
the kind of resource.  Saying it is a schema 
is too narrow; saying it can't be anything 
(no dereference) flies in the face of common 
sense.  Saying it is a resource directory by 
convention is the middle ground for the most 
progress and arguably, some mischief, but the 
mischief is limitable.  Tit for tat.

Sigh... catalogs etc, circa mid 90s, documents 
full of ilinks.  Maybe this egg is boiled and ready 
to salt.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@t...]

At 03:58 PM 29/12/00 +0800, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> I think there can still be a convention established with respects the
>different uses.
>For example, the convention could be that dereferencng the namespace URI
>(when it is an http:, at least) results in:
...
>  * some definite kind of directory or resource discovery document, to be
>decided, which allows systematic retrieval of lots of different kinds of
>resource, including links to semantic and structural schemas;

Bingo! -Tim

• Prev by Date: Namespace or document gloss?
• Next by Date: Re: Resource gloss
• Previous by thread: RE: Namespace or document gloss?
• Next by thread: Newbie in the room
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread