[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I understand your point, Marcus, but I'm not sure it's really relevant.
DTDs currently support only a subset of XML documents (for that matter,
the same is true of Schemas - I can design legal XML document structures
which cannot be expressed as either DTDs or Schemas). If namespaces are
added to the 1.1 recommendation DTDs would still be usable for the same
subset of documents as now. There's no reason that support for DTDs
would need to be dropped.
- Dennis
Marcus Carr wrote:
>Ronald Bourret wrote:
>
>>I think you're missing something. Forcing parser writers to implement
>>namespaces is not the same as forcing document authors to use them.
>>
>
>No, but as long as namespaces not part of the recommendation, as DTD is a viable
>mechanism. As soon as they are part of the recommendation, a DTD is potentially
>incapable of dealing with "vanilla" v1.1 documents. I would have a hard time justifying
>keeping DTDs under those circumstances.
>
>>The
>>only people who would be hurt by requiring namespace support in XML 1.1
>>are those who (against the advice of the XML 1.0 spec) use colons in
>>element type and attribute names. I'm curious if anybody actually does
>>this.
>>
>
>I can't imagine that they do, but that's not the issue, I don't think.
>
>
>--
>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
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
|
