RE: Can XML Schemas Support Document Systems

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

The problem with this line of thinking is that XML 
has succeeded in removing means which 
one group was uncomfortable with and replacing it 
with means others are uncomfortable with.   I find 
examples where an author says "I want to 
work without DTDs, of course" then immediately 
begins to explain "generate-id" as begging the 
question of functionality.  As an SGMLer, it 
is strange to see that simple means  
one could quickly teach to a document manager or designer 
replaced with whole subsystems that 
require intense or shall we say, "extreme" skills. 

Spilt milk.  We need XML Schemas and need them now. 
The time for this debate was last year.

So far, what I see in these arguments suggests that 
we can apply XML Schemas to document centric systems.  
Most of the counter examples seem to be extreme 
examples of the kind that don't often occur or for 
which there is a workaround.  No show stoppers.  
The gain of common means is worth the loss of 
fringe capabilities particularly if the fringe 
can be narrowed in future versions.  The question 
becomes one of controlling the process to ensure 
the working features don't change for the sake 
of competing notions and the fringe features 
are identified for true applicability so they 
do evolve sensibly.

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

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:vdv@dyomedea.com]

The fact I have no SGML background and have taken for granted that I
could work without DTD is probably a reason why I those constrains do
not look "natural" for me.