[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] New approach
I like your thinking... :) --- > It seems that we have a layered architecture emerging: Where would OpenMath stand? The core is based on a (small) set of objects independent of the language or encoding scheme. However, every OpenMath processor is required to support the XML grammar, so is it a "standalone language?" OpenMath expressions are meaningless without the context provided by externally linked "content dictionaries." As these dictionaries are standardized, does this mean the OpenMath is a collection of "information pools" rather than an individual language? --- Jimmy Cerra "I'm the W3C of my own fantasy-world!" > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:ricko@a...] > Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 3:20 AM > To: xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: New approach > > It seems that we have a layered architecture emerging: > > combined language or profile (document type), eg. XHTML+SVG+MathML > standalone language, e.g.namespace such as XHTML, SVG, MathML > information pool e.g. HTML modules, Ruby, xlink, CALS table > information unit, e.g. a simple ruby or an extended ruby, a simple xlink > or an > extended xlink, the xml-stylesheet PI > information item, e.g. xhtml:rb, xlink:href, > > It seems that namespaces are being used for very coarse-grained > element sets, not for fine-grained modules (which is the impression > I get from the namespace spec, but that may be a phantom). > > The combined language or profile seems to be more what a MIME type should > describe, or a RDDL document or an XAR archive. > > Ruby has had quite an ordeal figuring out whether it should have its own > namespace. In the end, they decided against it, because then it > is better for them to be part of HTML rather than separate. They are > clearly a module in the sense that the XML Namespaces has, but given > that they primarily need to fit conveniently into HTML, they chose not > to have their own namespace. > > I would say Schematron pattern's often correspond to information pools, > and Schematron rules often correspond to information units. > > Grammar-based schema languages provide content models > to model information units. XML Schema's <include> supports pooling. > <schema> supports standalone languages.Combined languages and > profiles are weakly supported using schemaLocation and redefine. > > > Cheers > Rick Jelliffe > > P.S. Anyone who is going to XML Europe 2002, and is interested in software > supporting ad hoc modular construction of documents organized as information > pools (which may be a namespace), please come and see me in the incubator > area at the Topologi desk. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...> > > I just looked at the new draft: http://www.w3.org/TR/XHTMLplusMathMLplusSVG/ > and found the approach interesting. Notably, the concept that an SVG document > can be considered the host of XHTML and MathML fragments, idem for MathML and > idem for XHTML (As hosts). I played with these profiles and found quite > interesting things. Did anybody played with these profiles?
|
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
|