On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:21:32 +0100, Danny Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I remember correctly, the use of DTDs in this way have passed through the list before (pre-IETF). I think the idea was discounted at the time for one or two practical reasons (sorry, I forget why, and Googling didn't help), but given the present circumstances it may well be worth revisiting. If a DTD could be used to provide a transparent overlay in this way without breaking anything else, that'd be great.
Couldn't any document typing or schema language (e.g. XSD) do this? I too remember DTD's were abandoned, and it was probably for good reasons, but I don't remember what they were, either. But that's okay, because I don't like DTD's anyway. :-)
Henry's approach of having an implicit mapping to RDF that can be made explicit through the insertion of one or two other-namespace attributes really does sound a low-cost, potentially uncontroversial way of making an RDF interpretation available. I think this may also offer a good reference for structural interpretation of extension elements too (as in Quark, Strangeness and Charm).
Examples?
-- Asbj�rn Ulsberg -=|=- http://virtuelvis.com/quark/ �He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away�
