[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
No he's not the only one.
"An underclass already exists..."
So without any substantial benefit, we rig a standard
to create a permanent underclass?
Ummm.... that's nuts.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald Bourret [mailto:rpbourret@rpbourret.com]
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.
|
