[sc34wg3] Almost arbitrary markup in resourceData

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Patrick Durusau
|
| +1 on full XML. XHTML is simply too limiting.

Seems like there is near-consensus on this, then.
 
| Do think there needs to be a mechanism by which I can indicate what
| is required to make sense of the data. 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. What is required to
make sense of XML data? And how would you include it? Is this really
an XML issue and not a topic map issue?

| Namespaces carry their own problems and I would not suggest them
| unless we cannot find an acceptable alternative.

I don't love namespaces any more than you do, but I don't think we can
avoid them. If we are going to do XML we have to include the warts.
 
| Suggestion: Let's discuss what we want to do, separate and apart
| from current solutions and then evaluate the pluses and minuses of
| any proposed solution. Prefer that over starting from a solution and
| making our needs fit it.

I think Jim and Eric have described the use cases pretty well already,
and I added some more in one of my replies to Murray. I think that
list covers most of the known use cases for this functionality.

If people want I can make sure Graham and I include a section on these
use cases in the document with the proposal for how to represent this
in the DM.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >