Jirka Kosek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Shouldn't the group of users who need such ad-hoc mechanism have chance > to standardize it?
If you're suggesting that the schema-association PI is the
mechanism that should be standardized for addressing this need,
then I think maybe your question should be, "Shouldn't the group
of users who think a PI is the right way to solve this problem
have a chance to standardize on the name and syntax of the PI?"
In which case, I would say, Yeah, they should have a chance to do
that, but the group of users who think there are better ways of
meeting the need should have a chance to discourage them from
creating such a standard. And have a chance to dissuade anybody
else from adopting or implementing support for such a standard if
it ever does get created.
FWIW, I agree about the need for doing "ad hoc" associations of
schemas with document instances. But I do not agree that using a
schema-association PI is the right way to address that need, and I
am very strongly opposed to endorsing a common (standard) PI for
it. And not because I have any moral objections to PIs. I think
there are good uses for PIs. This, to me, just does like seem like
one of them. Because it seems to me that we already have existing
schema-association mechanisms for meeting the need. I do not
understand what use-cases you have in mind that you believe
could not be handled better by the existing mechanisms.
To be specific, by "existing schema-assocation mechanisms", I mean:
- the locating-rules mechanism supported in nXML
- David Tolpin's "Regular Associations for XML" mechanism,
supported in ARX
- whatever else there might be that does not depend on "hard
coding" schema associations in individual document instances
I use both the locating-rules and ARX mechanisms, and I cannot
think of a use-case I could not deal with well by adding
information to a locating-rules file or ARX config file.
--Mike
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
