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

RE: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-sc hema)

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 12:20:43 -0500

Right.  I think that's what I was saying.  
RDDL is a language in the system, not the 
system.   Use of RDDL makes life easier 
but can't be required.  XLinks are a little 
lower in the food chain; above namespaces 
but below RDDL.  One could conceivably 
use a different application of XLinks 
and do the same thing.  Why, well who 
knows, but the levels are important to 
understand.   We can't legislate what 
a namespace URI resolves to because a 
namespace URI doesn't have to resolve. 

An XLink does, yes/no?

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

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...]

It is namespaces that are the core part of XML. RDDL provides people and
software a reasonable way to find out about and use namespace related
information.

It turns out that an XHTML document is a great way for people to find out
about a namespace, and XLink allows software to discover similar
information.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-sc hema)
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@h...>

• Prev by Date: displaying xlinks
• Next by Date: SV: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm
• Previous by thread: Re: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-sc hema)
• Next by thread: Re: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-sc hema)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread