Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <SimonStL@classic.msn.com>
- To: "Xml-Dev (E-mail)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 98 23:45:35 UT
>What about issues such as redefining a parameter entity in the external
>multiple identically named parameter entities within the DTD?
These could both be defined by specifying the behavior for the
DTD-as-document, just as they are now for DTDs. I see no difficulty here.
>parameter entities, what if the same entities behaved as a content model and
>attribute name? How and why would you make the distinction with the proposed
How and why would you make the distinction with the current syntax? Why would
this be so difficult to do in a document rather than the current syntax? Are
you saying that it would be crossing element boundaries and therefore break
the well-formedness requirements? The syntax is currently (obviously)
incomplete; I'll see what I can do to address this issue. I've obviously done
an inadequate job here.
Parameter entities are admittedly my least favorite part of XML, a necessary
evil and a powerful tool. There may well be limits on how well they can map
to this model - but is that a significantly worse limitation than the
abolition of the & content model? I think the manageability you'd gain with
this representation of XML DTDs would more than compensate for any loss
incurred by the enforced simplification of parameter entities.
>I think that the syntax that describes the structure of documents can validly
>different from the syntax that frames data because they're trying to
>very different things.
To a certain extent, this is certainly true. However, I think there's a
strong case to be made for using a single syntax - see the advantages listed
in the Rationale. I'm very happy with the document syntax XML inherited from
SGML, particularly as XML made that syntax much more strictly enforced. I'm
not as happy with the DTD syntax - and this seems like a good way to take
advantage of the power of XML's document syntax. The current DTD syntax is
workable - but not very extensible.
I see a lot of effort being put into schemas and other projects that seem to
add additional layers of complexity, and require applications to implement all
kinds of extra linkages. By standardizing the linkage mechanism and the
format for these extensions (as XLink or a derivative and XML documents,
respectively), I hope to see a lot less EBNF and a lot more XML.
Dynamic HTML: A Primer / XML: A Primer / Cookies
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)