RE: And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!"

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

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 
this time.

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Vint [mailto:dvint@slip.net]

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.