Definitely true. The whole SGML derived concept of a rigid document
type with a DTD is giving way to a much more fluid concpet where it
will be the common case that most anything can get stuck inside
anything else of any significant complexity all identified by
namespaces and each having their own schema.
Donald
From: Graham Klyne <GK(_at_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com>
Message-Id:
<4(_dot_)2(_dot_)2(_dot_)20000313181028(_dot_)00b1e860(_at_)pop(_dot_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com>
X-Sender: maiw03(_at_)pop(_dot_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:20:50 +0000
To: ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)innosoft(_dot_)com
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>,
Dan Kohn <dan(_at_)teledesic(_dot_)com>,
ietf-types(_at_)iana(_dot_)org,
"Martin J. Duerst" <duerst(_at_)w3(_dot_)org>,
MURATA Makoto <muraw3c(_at_)attglobal(_dot_)net>,
"Donald E. Eastlake 3rd"
<dee3(_at_)torque(_dot_)pothole(_dot_)com>, ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
In-Reply-To: <01JMZ789YMJK00004F(_at_)MAUVE(_dot_)INNOSOFT(_dot_)COM>
References: <"Your message dated Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:43:55 +0000"
<4.2.2.20000313101
810(_dot_)00b6a500(_at_)pop(_dot_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com>
<200003110057(_dot_)TAA16028(_at_)astro(_dot_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
<200003110057(_dot_)TAA16028(_at_)astro(_dot_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
<01JMWOONJT0G000N0L(_at_)MAUVE(_dot_)INNOSOFT(_dot_)COM>
At 08:02 AM 3/13/00 -0800, ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)innosoft(_dot_)com wrote:
Content-features: (Schema="<URI>")
[...]
Well, I would have hoped that the schema would be derivable from the content
without the need for a conneg tag. That is, given the labelling in the
content it should be possible to construct a URN automatically that tells
you where to look for the schema definition.
And again, unless you're dealing with application/xml, this seems like
an immutable property of the type.
From my reading, this is not true of the W3C vision of where XML in
general, and RDF in particular, may be going.
I understand that the idea of using multiple schema in a single document is
very much part of the long-term vision. So, for example, an invoice may be
described in the language of business, but the items to which it refers may
be described in a language described by some completely different
schema. A business application may need to understand the invoice-schema
parts of the invoice, but a manufacturing control application might need to
understand a different set of information expressed in different terms.
#g
------------
Graham Klyne
(GK(_at_)ACM(_dot_)ORG)