On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 11:20:06 +0200, Dr. Matthias Nagorni wrote: > > > plugins. So one would only have to agree upon a standard for these XML > > > files, right ? > > > > Right. I nominate RDF. > What I can see from http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-primer-20020319 > is that I would not mind having a simpler solution. I don't know much > about XML yet, but wouldn't a simple DTD do the job as well ? This DTD > could be extended by new tags and attributes whenever a plugin writer > needs them. So we would have an extensible and always backward compatible > solution. QT provides several classes for XML, so implementing a host for > this should be easy.
Your points about complexity are reasonable, however, XML + a DTD doesn't really allow the same level of expressivity that RDF does, and it has no semnatics, whereas an RDF description of a plugin can describe all sorts of things without requireing a big complex DTD. I suspect that if you did define it in XML you would end up reinventing an unexstensible version of RDF lacking the tool support that RDF has. [more in this in a mo, somone needs my laptop] - Steve