[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
One could argue pretty convincingly that there are
more DTDs and code handling validation than all of
the Schemas put together. That underclass may be
the majority.
XML processing is working in some places without
namespaces. They are working in some places with
them. The point is, both sides have what they
need now. Why change anything to degrade one
or the other?
I would rather wait to see what DSDL produces
than do anymore damage with hasty moves to change
DTDs. I don't see a compelling reason to change the
status quo at this time particularly if the DSDL
group will produce a schema language that fixes
what is missing in DTDs to make them work better
with the WWW frameworks for XML.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald Bourret [mailto:rpbourret@rpbourret.com]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> "An underclass already exists..."
>
> So without any substantial benefit, we rig a standard
> to create a permanent underclass?
>
> Ummm.... that's nuts.
Agreed. But since the underclass already exists, moving namespaces into
the XML 1.1 spec has no effect on this. (Similarly, leaving it out does
not make the underclass any less permanent.) The way to get rid of the
underclass is to get DTDs and namespaces to play together.
-- Ron
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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>
|
