Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Jarle Stabell <email@example.com>
- To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:02:18 +0200
Paul Prescod wrote:
"In other words, as Len has pointed out, the DTDs-as-instances efforts
are primarily focused on making life easier for vendors, perhaps at the
cost of simplicity for users. If this results in more tools, then it
might be a net win, but we don't know yet."
I think the DTDs-as-instances also benefits new users, why should they have to learn two syntaxes instead of one?
One of the first questions which entered my mind when seeing a DTD for the first time was:
"Why didn't they code this using SGML, why a completely separate syntax for this?".
(Persons who already know SGML may of course object to DTD-syntax not being SGML-syntax, but I think this will be even more the "feeling" among XML users)
I assume most people today won't edit DTDs (either today's version or XML-Data or similar versions) in the "raw" text format. They will of course use tools, visualizing the hierarchy (XML-Data's extends/implements), selecting values from comboboxes etc.
I think some advanced functionality is very difficult with todays DTD's, as (to my very limited SGML-knowledge) many things are "simulated/hacked" by using parameter entities.
I think this parameter entity (macro) approach is much less "semantic", and is much more difficult for a tool to handle.
Mr. Prescod also wrote:
"Of course particular DTDs-as-instances proposals may have other benefits,
but those benefits could as easily be added to DTD syntax as to some
Adding new constructions to DTD syntax would force parser builders to update the "lower parts" of their parsers/lexers, but in a DTD-as-instances version the upgrade would only affect the "semantic" part of the engine.
And more importantly, it would be easier to communicate to users that "now this (DTD)element has gotten this new attribute, which means X etc", instead of having to introduce the new syntax for DTD-encoding and then explaining it's semantics. (This is why we like SGML/XML in the first place, not needing to use more or less unstandard syntactic encodings)
I don't view XML-Data as the new syntax, quite the opposite, this I find completely "XML syntax". I view the DTD syntax as another "non-XML" syntax (although this is of course technically uncorrect according to the draft).
A few XML wishes:
1. Please incorporate the </> tag, it would take a parser-writer 5 minutes to implement it, as well as save bandwitdth, diskspace, typing and in some cases ease reading. (It could also be used to write hard-to-understand/maintain documents, but that's up to the user)
2. Allow non-quoted attribute values. I guess support for this is also a 5 minutes project for the parser-writer.
3. Add a paragraph to the XML standard document explaining why character references should be resolved before storing the string as the value of the entity.
Is it to allow <sarcastic>useful</> tricks like the example in the "C. Expansion of Entity and Character References" section, as well as making it rocket science to use character references in entity declarations?
(or only for compatibility with SGML?)
I don't know if this is "theoretically" possible, but it could save weeks of implementation time if all entity declarations could be parsed locally, and not forcing expansion and reparsing in all occurrences.
It there are no essential idioms getting lost in such a simplification, I definitely think such a simpler model would make life simpler for end-users as well, not only for the software vendors.
(Perhaps people wouldn't need to play parsers (and knowing many detailed rules) to read/write/debug their documents?)
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)