[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
...
The problems with processing DTDs in a namespace-aware manner are
greatly exagerated. One must simply give up on processing them an a
lexical domain. Which is no different than the shift inherent in
processing document entities in a namespace-aware manner. Otherwise one
is in a situation analogous to performing the calculations for a
perspective projection in a 2-d coordinate system. Would anyone complain
when they realized the difficulties of that endeavour? Or would they
accept that 3-d coordinate systems were better suited and act accordingly?
The test documents posted in the recent thread on qualified names in
attribute values demonstrated namespace-aware dtd interpretation.
Granted, they were of the simpler sort, but complex dtd processing
raises no issues (wrt names) which do not also appear with other encodings.
Jonathan Borden wrote:
>
> ...
>
> The single biggest problem I have with XML is the lack of compatibility
> between XML Namespaces and DTDs. But guess what? XML Namespaces appears to
> have won and DTDs have lost. Is _anyone_ really working on fixing DTDs? The
> main benefit of DTDs (IMHO) is the dirt simple syntax, but to be honest
> James Clark's non-XML syntax is well, pretty simple.
>
> >
> > And then there are the times when you need to use DTDs and namespaces
> > and DOM and XPath and Canonical XML, and a career move into a less
> > stressful occupation, such as a Middle East peace negotiator or an
> > Enron spokesperson, makes the most sense :~)
>
> Yeah I've dealt with that pain DTDs+Namespaces on several occasions, for
> example trying to figure out XHTML Modularization ... oy. But no one seems
> interested in really fixing that problem, perhaps because hardly anyone is
> working with DTDs?.
|
