Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Wayne Steele <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
>...There was a fairly explicit assumption that if you were using
>Namespaces, you would either work with well-formed documents or with a
>namespace-aware schema language, _NOT_ with DTDs. If you insist on mixing
>the two, and it doesn't work well, the response is going to be "we know."
I know, that you know, that Namespaces don't work well with DTDs.
Is this "fairly explicit assumption" documented or published anywhere?
Is this mentioned in the Namespaces REC?
Some people on this list feel that updating DTDs to be able to work _a
little better_ with namespaces is worth it.
Agreement on a PI to stick in DTDs seems to be the prevailing thought on how
to do it, although there are other ways to go about it.
Even at this late date, people (like me, for one) are still bewildered that
this wasn't done when the Namespaces REC was written.
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com