Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Tim Bray wrote: >... > > Paul, you're about the fifth smart person to fall into this trip which > means it's a nasty one and RDDLers have to be careful. There's no such > thing as a RDDL for a document. There's a RDDL for a *namespace*. Actually I'm not convinced that the RDDL specification is technically limited that way**, but I understand that namespace explanation is the central point of RDDL. Let me rephrase my point: * if I encounter a document "out of the blue" with only one namespace, I would confidently look up the RDDL and use the schemas, stylesheets, classes, etc. specified there. * if I encounter a document o-o-t-b with only one namespace represented on the root element, but others inline, I would proceed to the RDDL with about 80% certainty (not sure what to do in code about this confusion, but...). I would have NO IDEA what to do about the schemas, etc. for the inner namespaces. * if I encounter a document o-o-t-b with a namespace on the root and another namespace on an attribute then my certainty about the applicability of the RDDL has to drop to about 60% because of the XSLT precedent. I find this personally an uncomfortable situation but I think that RDDL only exposes it, not causes it. Paul Prescod ** on thinking about it, I kind of wonder whether documents should be able to suggest RDDLs as they can suggest schemas and stylesheets.
|
