Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Winchel 'Todd' Vincent, III" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 11:27:51 -0400
This message, sent last night, appears not to have made it to the list
because of email problems. I am reposting it. My apologies if anyone gets
> Idle musings only...
> Given that DTDs are for parsing for validity, it might not be unreasonable
> expect that the entire document will be checked against their various
> a DOCTYPE declaration is used to signal the start of a new document, it
> ideal if that concept could just be extended, allowing a number of
> coexist in a single compound document. Each time a new DOCTYPE was
> processing of the parent document would be suspended and the documents
> recursively. The existence of a nested document would have no impact on
> structure of the parent document - it wouldn't even need to be anticipated
Some idle musings on my part . . .
Why couldn't you use this same idea, but instead of relying on finding a
DOCTYPE (which would mean a change in XML 1.0), you simply pay attention to
the declared namespace and use the namespace URI to go fetch a DTD. I may
be way off base on this, but it seems to me, this would not require a change
in DTD syntax. It would not require a change in Namespace syntax. It would
simply mean a change in the rule that the resource at the end of the URI is
irrelevant and it would mean extra work (and new behavior rules) for a DTD
validating parser. I mentioned in an earlier post the difference between
(1) non-validating parser (2) validating parser (which everyone understands)
and (3) a proposed DTD-Namespace-aware validating parser.
Again, I could be completely wrong about the analysis here. But, your ideas
match very closely what I think a solution could be.
Any feedback would be welcome.