[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Michael Brennan wrote:
> This is totally bogus. Current market-leading XML parsers have support for
> XML Schema and namespaces, as well as supporting DTDs. Your argument that
> vendors will abandone DTD support if XML 1.1 rolls in namespace support
> flies in the face of what vendors have already done. There is nothing to
> support such an assertion. It is simply unfounded paranoia.
No, it's based on history. If XML is SGML, where are all of the new SGML
parsers? Of course, nobody wrote them - they dove straight in and supported XML
only. A v1.1 parser will need to have inbuilt namespace support and since DTDs
and namespaces don't play, it's reasonable to assume that some v1.1 parsers
won't bother to support DTDs. Why would they? Why would v1.1 mandate that they
should? DTDs would be dead in the water once v1.1 came in, and a lot of
currently functioning systems would have to be frozen at v1.0.
> As far as I can tell, this really all boils down to simply mandating that
> any use of ":" in names in XML 1.1 must comply with XML Namespaces. There is
> no other cost to existing documents. I'd be genuinely interested in hearing
> of real-world use cases that would warrant preserving the ability to use ":"
> in names in a manner that does not comply with XML Namespaces.
As I said in my last mail, I don't do this and I don't know of anyone who does.
I don't see this as being even loosely part of the problem, let alone the crux
of it as you seem to imply.
--
Regards,
Marcus Carr email: mcarr@allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
- Einstein
|
