Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
 Nicolas Lehuen wrote: > Well, I hope I won't be as flamed as Paul, but I have a few remarks too that > make me reluctant to use RDDL. And I hope that I would never flame anyone for asking a specific question, nor for making a specific suggestion. > > 1) Scalability. With only a few arcroles (or purposes ?), a single RDDL > document is readable. What if the number of associated resource grows ? What > is the benefit for a human reader to have to download a 500K document to > have a description of ... That might be a problem if you were to have a huge namespace. Then again your schemas would also be huge, so efficiency would be a concern regardless of RDDL. > > 2) ... a description of what ? A namespace ? If RDDL describes a namespace, > then let's be careful when providing arcroles for DTD and schemas. The case > where one namespace = 1 DTD and 1 schema document for each schema language > that you want to support is, like Paul wrote, a dangerous degradation of the > namespace purpose. So are you saying that a nature and a purpose is not enough? Do we need 3 URIs to describe a resource. What axis is the third URI? Do you have an example. Would such an example be common? I don't have any authority on the subject (and I'm sure > you people won't miss the opportunity to prove it to me), but I firmly > believe that the interest of namespace resides in allowing tags from > different namespaces to be mixed in the same document without name > 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. At the XHTML > namespace URL, or at the MathML namespace URL ? It's funny to notice that > the same problem exist for RDDL document themselves, since they mix the > (X)HTML, RDDL and XLink namespaces... 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. > > 3) It is a bit related to the scalability issue, but how do you handle > internationalisation ? RDDL contains human-readable text, that's fine, but > not everybody can or want to read English. So will you have all possible > translation of the human-readable text in the SAME RDDL document ? RDDL does provide for internationalization via the xml:lang attribute. I would not claim that this solves all internationalization problems, then again what happens when a French browser hits a German page (there must be a punch line in there somewhere). RDDL is certainly no worse than the basic HTML/HTTP Web infrastructure in this case. Jonathan 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
