- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:26:02 -0500
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, "TAG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Simon St.Laurent wrote: > > > TimBL made the point that if the only definitive material > > I have about my namespace is, say, an XML Schema, why > > not use that as a namespace document? i.e. why use > > indirection just for the sake of it? > > Preserving diversity at that stage in processing seems like a wise idea > to me. Indirection preserves choice by readers. Recommending that as > best practice to authors seems to be more than "indirection just for the > sake of it". > I strongly agree that indirection should be promoted as a best practice. From the point of view of efficiency, it doesn't matter either way: RDDL HTTP extensions http://www.openhealth.org/RDDL/httpext can be used as _transparent_ URI based content negotiation when the requesting software knows exactly what it wants and what it wants it for e.g. an XML Schema to be used for schema validation. RDDL client software handles the case where a single, non-RDDL entity is returned on resolving a URI: If the media type is text or application/xml _and_ the root element is namespace qualified, a single rddl:resource is returned having a RDDL nature equal to the root element namespace, otherwise the media type is converted into a URI by prepending: http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/ to the returned media type. This URI forms the RDDL nature. Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 16:28:29 UTC