[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!"
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Henry S. Thompson)
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 18:43:28 +0000
"Sean B. Palmer" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > That makes it easy to explain why the DTD
> > is there even if not why it is non-normative.
> > That still makes no sense to me.
> I'm quite sure what you're implying there...DTDs are non normative? Huh?
> Forgive my ignorance, but I thought that the DTD format was laid out in the
> SGML ISO specification...probably not.
It's the DTD for Schemas which is non-normative _as far as the Schema_
_spec is concerned_. That is, we choose to make the DTD non-normative
to avoid having to rule on questions of the form
The Schema for Schemas says X, the DTD for Schemas says X', which
should I pay attention to?
By making the D4S non-normative, we can just say "if you think there's
a conflict, you're probably wrong, but it doesn't matter, just go with
Also, at the margin, there are valid schema documents which are
schema-valid wrt the S4S but not XML 1.0-valid wrt the D4S, namely
those which use two or more prefixes for the XML Schema namespace.
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: email@example.com