[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Paul Prescod wrote:
> At the time the argument was that it would be simpler for schema author
> because they would "only need to learn one syntax."
I vaguely remember that argument. I never believed it. DTDs have the
advantages of simple syntax and covering a wide variety of useful cases.
They work great for simple languages and the limited number of choices
forces me to think hard about how to do stuff. I'm rarely disappointed
in the result. I'm quite happy predicting that DTDs will have a long
life.
My initial interest in schema languages was (a) to avoid writing a DTD
parser and related tools, (b) data typing. That still pretty much sums
it up. One unexpected thing has been that "related tools" didn't quite
cut it. In the end, I ended up writing code to model DTD/schema
structures and explored those instead of using the DOM -- basically a
data binding solution rather than a pure XML solution. In retrospect, it
seems obvious, but it didn't at the time.
-- Ron
|
