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 ]

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.


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

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

Terseness in DTD redesign is of minimal importance...;-)


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

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