[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Paul Prescod wrote:
> There have been at least two attempts to add datatypes to DTDs without
> breaking the syntax. Lextype and DT4DTD. You're baking a cake. Please do
> not be afraid to break some eggs!
I'm inclined to agree with Paul, but I'm not really sure whether there's a
sensible role for an extended DTD syntax. While I like the suggestions that John
Cowan has put forth, I wonder if we might end up with something almost exactly
like RELAX NG but without XML syntax. If that were the case, I don't really see
much benefit.
Even as a long-time campaigner for the preservation of DTDs, I'm pretty much
willing to trade them for the simplicity and elegance of RELAX NG. This would be
especially true if we got to a point where we had datatypes and namespaces in
DTDs, and then decided that we had to figure out how to integrate Schematron
rules...
Could someone spell out the role that they see extended DTDs playing? (Ken?) I'm
not saying that there isn't one, just that it doesn't jump up and bite me.
--
Regards,
Marcus Carr email: mcarr@allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
- Einstein
|
