Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 11:53:32AM -0500, Andrew Kuchling wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 08:36:42AM -0800, Joe English wrote:
> >XML's original requirement of compatibility with SGML has
> >served its purpose. At this point SGML, if it is to survive,
> >needs to worry about compatibility with XML.
> But is a DTD-less XML still good for writing up novels and recipes?
> DTDs provide just about the right level of strictness for textual
> data, where ordering of elements is often all that you need and the
> readability of the schema matters.
You sound wistful for a subset of DTD syntax that is useful for
novels and recipies. :-) Do we *really* need <!NOTATION>
declarations? Are IDs best defined in <!ENTITY> declarations? And
what about unparsed entities? Conditional sections? Mixed content
DTDs may have one saving grace, but they have many more flaws.
> I'm a bit concerned that dropping
> DTDs will mean the end of such applications. If you take away DTDs,
> what is there to replace them?
Sounds like you want to keep the bath water just to save the
baby. DTDs have a lot of warts, they don't really fit XML
documents very well, and they don't mesh well with XML data at all.
> XML Schema, which is less readable and
> provides a lot of data types that aren't useful to a textual
RelaxNG is probably the way to go. It's starting to look like the
multiple uses of XML demand multiple schema languages, not one
XML Schema language which binds us all. A simple DTD schema language
(with XML Syntax) would probably be the best mesh for the problem
space you describe; rote translation to XML Schema / RelaxNG should
solve the interoperability issues.