Re: XML catalog draft

>> A meta-document is just a packing list, as is a catalog. Catalogs
>> should only be used to identify peices in a given document, not 
>> for the basis for name resolution.
>In the simple case, yes.  The meta-document could also describe relationships
>or alternate renderings.  For example, there might be a set of style-sheets
>that could be applied depending on the user.

This is one reason we suggested a SEMANTICS entry in SO catalog: you
could bring across the document, and also know the various semantic
processors that could be applied to it.

>1. Specify multiple styles with semantics about who should use them and
>   when they should be used.
>2. Specify client-side transformations and associate with operation "classes"
>   such as "Create me a summary".
>3. Specify inter-document relationships.
>4. Specify target documents (notice the plural).
>3. Specify client-side workflow or "sequence of events" that can utilize
>   (1), (2), (3), and (4).

OK. I agree that SO catalogs would be somewhat stretched by this. I think
we might then go off and define the "packing list" and "meta-document"
seperately. For simple cases, SO catalogs would be good enough, and
for everything else, meta-documents.

Perhaps the WG shoudl produce a spec for both?

Follow-Ups: References: