[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
>
> 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.
I'd bet it is. And I fail to see why you think I'm trying to get rid of
DTDs. I'm asking for a way to accord namespaces the de jure status they
already de facto have _and_ resolve the discrepancies between namespaces
and DTDs, which has bothered me since day 1.
> 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 see moving namespaces into the XML spec as a matter of formalizing the
status quo, you see it as disrupting the status quo. I think it's best
to agree to disagree on this one.
> 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.
Fair enough.
-- Ron
|
