[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!"
- From: Dan Vint <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com (Norman Walsh)
- Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 12:14:05 -0800 (PST)
> / Danny Vint <firstname.lastname@example.org> was heard to say:
> | Are we seriously thinking that CALS, DocBook, etc are going to be rewritten
> | as full Schema applications?
> For what it's worth, I've taken a stab at an XML Schema for DocBook and
> may take a stab at a RELAX Schema as well, just for fun. You can find
> the XML Schema results at
> | What's the value in doing that?
> Little more than intellectual curiosity at the moment. Over the long
> run, I can imagine a future in which an authoring application (for
> example) exists that I want to use but that only understands (some
> flavor of) instance-based schema language(s). Then I'll need to port
> my DTDs to those schema languages.
I didn't doubt that someone with way too much time on their hands would
eventually do somehting like this. ;-) What gets me is the statement that
DTDs are dead when the statment only comes from one side of the world. It
seems to me that DTDs have worked and would continue to work as long as
software continues to support them.
BTW, how are you handling entities in your conversion effort? Seems that
Schemas has sort of punted on this issue currently, which might not be
a problem in the data centric world and maybe not an issue in XML if some
one would ever implement the fragement standard.
> Be seeing you,
> Norman.Walsh@East.Sun.COM | The stone fell on the pitcher? Woe to the
> XML Technology Center | pitcher. The pitcher fell on the stone? Woe
> Sun Microsystems, Inc. | to the pitcher.--Rabbinic Saying