Lists Home |
Date Index |
Marcus Carr wrote:
> 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.
I agree with the assessment that this is bogus. DTDs are in 1.1 and if a
parser doesn't support them, it isn't an XML 1.1 parser.
I think this does raise a legitimate problem though, and that is that
moving namespaces into 1.1 formalizes the problems between DTDs and
namespaces. One solution is to continue to live with the problem. A
better solution is to allow namespace "declarations" in DTDs via the
mechanism proposed recently by Rick Jelliffe  and implemented a years
ago by Microsoft.
The good news is that this solution is already known to work. The bad
news is that it would cause backwards-incompatibility problems --
documents that are both valid and namespace valid would cease to be
valid due to a lack of xmlns attribute defaults in the DTD.