At 9:46 PM +0100 1/20/02, Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
>I'm glad you write that. So now, do you agree that RDDL cannot be used to
>find the schemas of XML documents that contain a mix of namespaces, despite
>the fact that those schemas exist (there is a DTD for RDDL, WAP 2.0, etc.) ?
No, it can be used for this provided each element is in a namespace,
each such namespace URI has a RDDL document including a link to a
relevant schema, and the schema language and the schemas themselves
are designed to allow these sorts of multiple namespace documents.
(The last point is the biggest obstacle in practice.)
>Do you agree that RDDL is good at describing *namespace* meta-data (apart
>from a few problems, but let's be open-minded), but NOT at describing XML
>document meta-data ?
Yes, absolutely.
>Do you understand my point, which is that instead of
>focusing on RDDL which solves a little part of the meta-data problem, but
>looks like a sliver bullet, we should reckon the limitations of RDDL and try
>to go further ?
Maybe I understand it, but I disagree with it. RDDL is good at what
it does, and useful. It is not a bad thing. If you want do something
else useful that's orthogonal to RDDL, that's fine; but this in no
way indicates that RDDL should not be used or supported. What you're
proposing does not go further. It goes in a different direction.
--
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| The XML Bible, 2nd Edition (Hungry Minds, 2001) |
| http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/ |
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ |
| Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
