[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
- To: Chris Lovett <clovett@microsoft.com>,"'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@simonstl.com>,XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@xml.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:09:52 -0600
Doesn't that present a problem of not having
a language to define the schema language in?
At the top of XML is still SGML. There is an
SGML Declaration which fixes the syntax. Then
there is an SGML DTD to fix the schema:Schema
*vocabulary* (aka, the schema application language).
So how does the DTD go away altogether
without inventing a lot of new and potentially
more destabilizing technology to replace
it in its formal definitional role for XML?
There is "dead wood" then there is the hearth.
Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Lovett [mailto:clovett@microsoft.com]
Some things may just need to get a trim around the edges, for example, soon
it may be time to trim DTD's out all together. Some things that prove to be
way off track may need to get axed or completely redesigned. A deprecation
strategy is essential otherwise the burden of carrying all the dead wood
will bury us. Dead wood really does stifle innovation.
|
