W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org > August 2012

RE: use cases

From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 22:06:28 -0400
To: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>
Cc: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, "public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org" <public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1345428389.9441.26.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 00:37 +0000, Rushforth, Peter wrote:
> Liam,
> If the information in an unobtrusive namespaces file can be
> retrieved/created by xslt from an xml+namespaces document, should it
> not be reasonably possible that the result of processing a
> namespace-free document + a unobtrusive namespace file be equivalent
> to the result of an xml processor processing the equivalent xml
> +namespaces document ie effectively no data model differences?

Yes, that's the idea at least :)

> In any case it might be a pain to have to deal with two files instead
> of one in the general case,
>  but where a media type has been defined, as I was trying to
> illustrate with "neoxml", it could be a matter of the appropriate
> unobtrusive namespaces file being fixed by the the specification of
> the media type, and provided when necessary and appropriate via
> content negotiation on the specification URI for
> application/namespaces+xml.

I'd tie it to an (XML vocabulary + application) combination probably -
by far the majority of XML vocabularies just use application/xml and I
don't expect that to change. Registering a new MIME media type is a lot
of work.


Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 02:06:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:44:53 UTC