[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Marcus Carr wrote:
> The change would mean that:
>
> DTDs are unable to play with namespaces, so they are not capable of
> fully supporting the v1.1 recommendation. Ergo, DTDs should be dropped
> as they have been rendered incomplete and confusing.
>
> I don't know whether this will be the case, but it seems logical. I also don't
> know whether it would be a good or bad thing - I'm just trying to establish the
> possible impact of the change. Am I the only one who thinks that we risk
> creating an underclass of systems and documents?
I think so. And the underclass already exists, so I don't see the risk.
As I noted elsewhere, if the authors of 1.1 are bothered by the
incompatibility of namespaces and DTDs, they have an alternative to
throwing out DTDs -- making namespaces work with them. While this is
probably too much to hope for, it would be nice.
-- Ron
>
> --
> 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>
--
Ronald Bourret
Programming, Writing, and Research
XML, Databases, and Schemas
http://www.rpbourret.com
|
