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

Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• From: Bill Lindsey <bill@b...>
• Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:14:34 -0800
• Organization: B-Bop Associates, Inc.
• References: <3C4EDE73.62D3CEA6@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1

Jonathan Borden wrote:

> <?rddl-doctype href="http://example.org/some-rddl-description.html" ?>
> 
> I've heard both sides, some people desire "document type" based
> processing, others don't. Is there any harm in providing for this
> _optional_ PI?


My objection is that is another way to accomplish the same goal
that is already part of a W3C recommendation:  the "xsi:type"
attribute from W3C XML Schemas.

Your goals, as I understand them:
   * Identify a document as belonging to a named type
   * Using the name itself as a reference to a resource directory

xsi:type does the first, and as best as I can tell doesn't
preclude our doing the second.

At 1014 23/01/2002 -0500, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

 > I don't think it's as clear cut as this. Imagine
 > that your application, for
 > whatever reason, wants to package several XML
 > documents together into one
 > overall document. You might then want to write:
 >
 > <DocSet rddl:doctype="http://whatever/DocSet">
 >     <doc1 rddl:doctype="http://whatever/doctype1">
 >        :
 >     </doc1>
 >     <doc2 rddl:doctype="http://whatever/doctype2">
 >        :
 >     </doc2>
 > </DocSet>

What's wrong with:

<DocSet
      xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
      xmlns:rxds="http://whatever/DocSet"
      xsi:type="rxds:doc">
    <doc1
      xmlns:rxdt1="http://whatever/doctype1"
      xsi:type="rxdt1:doc">
        :
    </doc1>
    <doc2
      xmlns:rxdt2="http://whatever/doctype2"
      xsi:type="rxdt2:doc">
        :
    </doc2>
</DocSet>


I'd be particularly interested in hearing

arguments that this approach:


 * somehow subverts W3C Schemas or Namespaces

  * requires W3C schema validation or PSVI processing

 * interferes with W3C schema validation or PSVI processing

  * favors any particular schema language over others

 * is ugly


Best,
Bill

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document
    • From: John Aldridge <john.aldridge@i...>
  • Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <kpako@y...>

• References:
  • Strategies for a lowly XML document
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• Next by Date: RE: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• Previous by thread: Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• Next by thread: Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread