• From: Miles Sabin <MSabin@i...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 21:17:19 +0000

Dan Brickley wrote in another thread,
> FWIW I'll be putting XHTML and RDF at most of my namespaces and 
> could really do with a vocabulary for pointing to Java classes, 
> XML schemata, public keys, XSLTs and suchlike to include
> alongside.

Many of the things Dan mentions here look as tho' they'd be
equally appropriate as resouces related to a complete document
instance ... so the association might be doc<->resources, not
just namespace<->resources.

I don't see any particular reason why that should affect the
content of a gloss doc, but it pretty clearly means that using
namespace URIs for making the association won't do the whole
job.

Thoughts?

Cheers,


Miles

-- 
Miles Sabin                               InterX
Internet Systems Architect                5/6 Glenthorne Mews
+44 (0)20 8817 4030                       London, W6 0LJ, England
msabin@i...                         http://www.interx.com/

• Prev by Date: Re: Resource gloss
• Next by Date: RE: Treaty of Wulai
• Previous by thread: RE: XLang
• Next by thread: Re: Namespace or document gloss?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread