[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!"
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Danny Vint <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 08:23:33 -0600
We don't have to move XML to ISO. Guaranteeing
process and guaranteeing a method for assessing
the changes to the specs are needed. Ostensibly,
there is an XML group that steers these things.
I'd simply like more clarity when it comes to future
work particularly if we have to keep ripping out
pieces to fit. So far, for all the rant on
the death of DTDs, the role they play as the
bridge from the syntax to structure has not
been fulfilled. XML Schemas is an application
language, a vocabulary, not the bridge.
Build a simpler bridge. That I will welcome
as progress, but before the DTDs go away,
we need some reasonable design for that bridge.
No handwaving or mandates by negative requirements
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Danny Vint [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Isn't this one of the reasons to try and move XML to the ISO standards
process? I want to build on technology that is going to move forward but
not at the cost of breaking implementations from the past or at the very
least be able to accept data from the past.