Lists Home |
Date Index |
I'm not reading intent. I see trends. Tim Bray et al's skunk document
makes it clear enough that some see removing DTDs as the best
way to put namespaces in the core. The ways DTDs have to satisfy
namespace requirements now are clunky. There are competing
language efforts for the metainformation space which is a niche
space. Some do intend to do away with DTDs, have for a long
time, and they have been vocal about that.
But that isn't the point. Until and unless something like
the skunk document is accepted, DTDs are here to stay. Until
and unless something like DSDL succeeds, they are here to
stay in their current form. That makes them a formal antagonist
to namespaces, formal in that they are in core and namespaces
are not. We can dance around it as much as you like, but
for namespaces to be core, DTDs have to go or be reengineered.
Given that, waiting is best.
We do have to agree to disagree. If the status quo doesn't
equal common practice, then it is the elite status. I don't
have a problem with that. But neatness for the heck of it isn't a
compelling argument and those that need namespaces have them.
Fix what's broken, but this isn't broken. Why do it?
It's a symptom of insecure ambitions. That's not the way
to plan the future.
From: Ronald Bourret [mailto:email@example.com]
"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.