OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> writes:

> But note that I am *not* proposing a revision of XML DTDs,
> but rather the creation of a new schema language to be a superset of
> XML DTDs.  Schemas of this kind cannot be referenced by DOCTYPE
> declarations, because the result would be not well-formed.  Instead,
> they must be specified to the external validation program.

I guess there is an answer here to the issue you raised previously:

> General issue: We need to figure out what to do if the instance contains
> an internal DTD (by which I mean an internal subset, a reference to an
> external subset, or both).  Should internal validation be required,
> permitted, or forbidden when doing external validation?

Do you mean internal XML 1.0 DTD or internal Part 9 DTDs?

If you meant processing XML 1.0 DOCTYPE declarations, I don't see a
reason to. W3C Schema needs to process DOCTYPEs because there are
features it doesn't (yet) replicate that are available in DTDs
(entities), but this language will have all of DTDs' features in it.

If you meant internal Part 9 subsets, I'd say do away with them. I get
the impression a lot of people are unhappy with a document that
validates against a DTD without following its declarations

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
               "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"; [
  <!ENTITY % my-html SYSTEM "my-own-xhtml.dtd">
  <!ELEMENT html (%who-knows-what;)>



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS