- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:58:52 +0200
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Chris Lilley wrote: > On Monday, October 10, 2005, 12:16:55 PM, Robin wrote: > RB> There is no standard way of referencing a RelaxNG schema from an > RB> instance document. The reason for this is because it's considered bad > RB> practice to associate tightly a document with a schema, since in fact > RB> depending on the situation one could want to apply different schemata > RB> from the one the author thought would be the best. > > Right. Some editors use processing instructions to do this. Others use a > table of namespaces and start elements. Yes. The RelaxNG folks did some work on defining one (because people were using it) but since they all thought it was a bad idea it didn't go very far. > RB> It is also likely that we'll be putting an RDDL (http://rddl.org/) > RB> document at http://www.w3.org/2000/svg that will point to the RelaxNG, > RB> but that may require that we wait for the TAG to come to some decision > RB> on it. > > No, it doesn't. The TAG, after spending a lot of time discussing it and > even more time trying to design a RDDL 2 that no-one seemed to want, > then noticed OWL as well and decided there was no one true namespace > document format any more. So, people who want to use RDDL 1.0 can carry > on doing so. Oh, good news. I'd been waiting for something in that space for about 4 years so I guess at some points I just fell asleep waiting ;) I guess if it won't be decided by the TAG, we'll have to vote with our feet. > Robin is correct that the svg namespace will probably contain a RDDL 1.0 > document at some point. But the main constraint is getting time to write > one. No problem, I'll do it (at some point during CR). I've given myself an action to do so. -- Robin Berjon Senior Research Scientist Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Monday, 10 October 2005 16:59:05 UTC