xml-dev - Re: Does DTD validation work with namespaces?

[Amy Lewis <amyzing@talsever.com>]

On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 07:41:05AM -0400, Norman Walsh wrote:
>/ James Robertson <jamesr@steptwo.com.au> was heard to say:
>| Isn't the issue that namespaces allow you
>| to mix information from a number of sources,
>| however you see fit? Every document can have
>| different elements, and yet still be considered
>| OK according to well-formed and namespace rules ...
>| 
>| How do we handle _this_ behaviour, and still
>| make some use of DTDs?
>
>The only way that I'd consider such a document valid is if the (set of)
>DTDs in question all referred to each other. I would expect the content
>models of each DTD to specifically allow the mixtures. For example,
>a DocBook+MathML DTD might allow:
>
>  <!ELEMENT equation (alt?, (graphic+|mediaobject+|mml:math+))>
>
>But to say that you can mix them "willy nilly" violates the principals
>of validity at their core.

Oh, yuck!  (to use the technical term)

A treatise combining elements of mathematics, chemistry, with
illustrations and bibliographic information can't be written?

SVG, at least, is intended for inclusions, rather than for the creation
of standalone documents; is this inclusion only via XInclude/XLink?

Or could I create a grand-unifying DTD for work in the field of
statistical chemistry (say) that, by importing the domain-specific DTDs
for mathematics, chemistry, graphics, bibliographies, and general
document-oriented text, permitted all of these elements, in some
specified (to whatever degree of specificity) order?

Or must I say, "Nope, can't do that," and "just" do XHTML?

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis          alicorn@mindspring.com          amyzing@talsever.com
Yankees are compelled by some mysterious force to imitate Southern accents
and they're so damn dumb they don't know the difference beween a Tennessee
drawl and a Charleston clip.
					-- Rita Mae Brown, "Rubyfruit Jungle"