Re: The XML Schema GRDDL Story

On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 12:44, Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 12:31 -0700, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 11:26, Eric Miller wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm still sort of on the fence about following xsi:schemaLocation, with 
> > > a slight preference to include this capability. But if you guys think 
> > > not, at least @@'ing this issue in an updated GRDDL note is probably 
> > > worthwhile.
> > 
> > To be really seaworthy, it's good if schema-aware software
> 
> well, that's the issue right there. GRDDL isn't inherently
> aware of XML Schema; it knows about XHTML, RDF, XML and namespaces,
> and it depends on some widely deployed programming language(s),
> for which XSLT seems the best fit these days (though I would like
> to find time to try out javascript).
> 
> The question is whether to support xsi:schemaLocation and
> make it aware of XML Schema when it didn't before.

Understood and agreed.  I was speaking in the context
of making processors look not just in the instance, but
in the schema documents that define the namespace(s) used
in the instance, for the relevant information.  I'm a
late-comer to the conversation and I may have assumed
more about what has been agreed on than was correct.

So let me express myself more carefully.  If (*if*)
we want to find the relevant schema documents, schema 
location hints and other ways of finding schemas not at
the namespace name and not mentioned in a RDDL document
there do seem worth considering.  Me, I'd build them in, 
if it were my code -- and for that matter I'll help you 
build them in, if it's your code and you want to do
it and I can help at all.  But when it comes to your
code, I think it's your decision.

Michael