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

RE: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses

• To: 'Joe English' <jenglish@f...>, XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:02:56 -0600

Good to know.  And yes, I know that.

o  Catalog used to map the PUBLIC ID to the SYSTEM ID. Yes?

o  RDDL used to map the namespace id to some set of resources 
   identified by purpose, type, etc.

o  As a disambiguator, the PUBLIC ID works as well as 
   the HTTP thingie.

In SGML, we are used to the idea of the mapping of the 
PUBLIC and SYSTEM IDs at the level of the DOCTYPE.
What happens if the Public ID is used in lieu of the http: 
thing string at the element and attribute level?  The 
disambiguation functionality still works.  What about 
indirection to documented resources?  The PUBLIC ID 
has a class description and a version.  That seems 
useful for cutting down on what we would have to 
get from the ThingAtTheEndOfTheIndirector.

We tossed away NOTATIONs.   They were kinda handy 
for mapping an element type to the resource that 
handled it.  Now we are saying a namespace string 
can do all that a programmer practically needs.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe English [mailto:jenglish@f...]

Bullard, Claude L wrote:

> Why not use the OASIS catalog, an FPI and the version in the namespace value?
> "most FPIs look like this:
>       owner//class description//language//version"
> What advantages does RDDL have over an OASIS catalog?


RDDL and OASIS catalogs are used for totally different things.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: SOAP-RPC and REST and security
• Next by Date: RDDL: minor update
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses
• Next by thread: RE: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread