Jonathan Borden wrote:
> 
>....
> 
> Right, and to be totally clear it is not tenable to equate namespaces and
> document types.

Agreed.

>...
> I.e. there are an infinite number of possible schemas which conform to XHTML
> modularization and whose instance documents have the root "xhtml:html".

Agreed again. Do you agree that it makes more sense to associate
schemas, stylesheets, etc. with document types than with namespaces?

> Perhaps the main issue is that if we are finally jettisoning DTDs, we ought
> to have a replacement for the <!DOCTYPE> declaration (modulo the internal
> subset - groan). 

A simple PI.

> ... It would be good if the schema pointed to by this
> declaration where not hardwired to a single schema declaration language.

Right, and RDDL might be an appropriate target language for that.

> This issue is IMHO orthogonal to namespaces.

That's mostly true. But the thing that has Nicolas and Paul so excited
is that of the two choices (namespace and doctypes), we've developed an
infrastructure for associating schemas and stylesheets with the wrong
thing. The actual file format may be appropriate for doing the other
task but we just need to declare that best practice is now to associate
RDDL's with schemas and namespaces to document types, not namespaces.

 Paul Prescod