[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Total agreement. You may remember that we tried to
get rid of them in the original XML WG/SIG and had
to contend with the issue of DTD maintenance and
the baffling books that suggest that treating them
as a conceptual design tool is a good thing for
very large DTDs. It was countered that perhaps
very large DTDs are the real problem and that
those advocating DTD design methods as a verisimilitude
of object-oriented design needed to do more
object-oriented design so they would understand
it better as software design and not a handy metaphor.
len
From: Marcus Carr [mailto:mcarr@allette.com.au]
The only reason I'd have for keeping them is to allow a DTD to be broken into
separate files. As long as that was catered for somehow, I'd be happy to see them
die.
I could do without the ability to group element and attribute declarations too -
like PEs, I think they make DTDs more difficult to read, particularly if you're
looking for a particular element declaration. I'd rather search for the string
"<!ELEMENT foo" than sift through all the places that foo gets mentioned in the
DTD.
Terseness in DTD redesign is of minimal importance...;-)
|
