Re: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....

[Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>]

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> 
> Not historical but applicable.  I can build with
> XML plus DTDs and never touch an xmlns declaration. 

And I do build a lot using XML + namespaces without touching a DTD...

Simplicity and applicability are very subjective and application
dependent.

> This may be a point of view with regards to designing
> a document vs implementing XML.   I include
> DTDs because they are in XML 1.0, not documented
> separately which is the case for namespaces. That
> may be historical but the case is that one can
> do a lot of work without using namespaces.
> 
> Logic is never pure.  You have to pick the
> conditions.  Logic is mechanical after that.
> The politic is choosing the choices.
> 
> XML Base and XInclude?  Good questions.
> I put them in the same layer with namespaces.
> Where would you put them?

Do you mean functional or procedural layers?

I'd tend to put XInclude in the same functional layer than external
parsed entities and XML Base with namespaces, exactly as I put modeling
DTD in the same bag than W3C XML Schema...

Eric

> Len
> http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
> 
> Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
> Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
> 
-- 
Pour y voir plus clair dans la nebuleuse XML...
                                          http://dyomedea.com/formation/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org      http://4xt.org           http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------