Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Chris Pratt <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>,Michael Champion <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 11:12:04 -0700
Here, here, I second that motion!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Borden" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Michael Champion" <email@example.com>;
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 7:55 AM
Subject: RE: DTDs aren't going away even when schemas arrive (was Re:
Aretherestill a lot of people using DTD rather than schema?)
> Michael Champion wrote:
> >So whatever the future of schemas for declaring constraints on
> > document structure and content, DTDs aren't going away in the forseeable
> > future as the place to make such declarations.
> > And the question of how to handle the case where both the DTD and schema
> > contain content model constraints is not easy to answer. I write this
> > [sorry, Lauren!] while listening to the DOM WG beat their
> > collective heads
> > against the wall trying to figure this out ... and lets not even
> > talk about
> > the little nuggets of complexity that namespaces throw into this
> > toxic stew.
> At the very very least DTDs need to be retrofitted to handle namespaces. I
> would say, add no new functionality, allow me to use DTDs as they
> currently exist, with documents that use namespaces.
> The issues:
> 1) need to define namespace prefix bindings in the DTD, at least for local
> DTD purposes
> 2) the DTD declaration will depend on the expanded name, not the
> prefix:local name in the literal sense as it currently stands.
> Jonathan Borden
> The Open Healthcare Group