Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Rick Jelliffe" <email@example.com>
- To: "W. Eliot Kimber" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 02:35:37 +1000
> From: W. Eliot Kimber <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> This is why I think architectures are key to
> the success of XML: it lets you eat the cake of DTD-less documents and
> still have it (because the architecture processing gives you all the
> validation and processing you need, but only when you want it and not
> when you don't).
This seems a very good and important point.
If the problem is how to represent occassional structures in well-formed
documents, then AFs represent an external form, XML-data represents an
inline form, and ISO 8879 declarations represent a header form.
But, I think that a document with AFs cannot be regarded as being
declaration-less, since either the declarations have to be implicitly
built into the application, or be explicit in the form of a DTD outside.
The horrible thing is that, of course, there is no reason why an
XML-data schema could not itself be a meta-DTD! I think the
issue of direct modelling (SGML templates or XML-data) versus
indirect modelling (AFs) should be distinguished from the issue
of the goodness of ISO 8879 declaration syntax versus XML-data
non-standard syntax. AFs, as a mechanism, are syntax-neutral
to a great extent.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)