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

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

That is the conclusion one comes to actually.  It 
isn;t so much self-referentialism, but that the 
XML Schema is a vocabulary for building a vocabulary 
by definition.
 
So we bootstrap up from a DTD and then we can, 
as we choose to, forget about them.  That is 
quite a different issue then a directive to forget. 
One might (and some have) produce 
yetAnotherVocabularyVocabulary.

Again, meaning is a choice of means.  Somewhere 
way back there, I understood markup as a means 
to conserve the choice of authorities.  So keep 
the DTD and by appeal to ISO, keep the W3C in 
check.  

Otherwise, we can choose among haikus.

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: Tony Coates [mailto:Tony.Coates@reuters.com]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 11:35 AM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!"




>> Having just read another round of "DTDs are Dead and
>> Deserve to Be" in an article prominently quoting
>> a W3C official who is in charge of architectures,
>> why is that there?
>
>1) Just what is it that you think is inappropriate about the above?
>2) What 'W3C official' and what article?

And, let's face it, would it be *so* bad anyway if there were just one last
XML
spec which used DTDs, that for Schemas itself?   (Not that actually it does,
but
still ...)  Self-referentialism (s-2-f-r-twelve-m) is overrated.