[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: Tony Coates <Tony.Coates@reuters.com>, email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:47:09 -0600
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
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
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
Otherwise, we can choose among haikus.
Intergraph Public Safety
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Tony Coates [mailto:Tony.Coates@reuters.com]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 11:35 AM
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
spec which used DTDs, that for Schemas itself? (Not that actually it does,
still ...) Self-referentialism (s-2-f-r-twelve-m) is overrated.