[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Arjun Ray scripsit:
> And so, then, why must the revised DTD syntax use colonified forms at all?
> Looks like Premature Closure to me.
We are only storyboarding. Propose an alternative by all means; nothing
that happens here directly affects the ISO WG. Nor do I have any special
authority merely because I kicked off the discussion.
> But there's more, another issue raised in this thread. Why must this
> single "validation DTD" be encompassing rather than merely enabling (to
> use terminology from the AFDR)?
Can you explain this? I am not enough of an AF weenie to understand this.
> If you're going to smorgasbord names in an ad hoc manner, why must there
> be a unitary DTD to describe what could have been a one-off, composed as
> the spirit moved you? If, on the other hand, there is intent to *design*
> a DTD, then why doesn't an annotation mechanism solve the problem of the
> provenance of various names?
Make a proposal for such an annotation mechanism, then, by all means.
> | Why people want to use namespaces, or why they shouldn't, is out of scope.
>
> I call this ostrichism.
I call it anti-dogmatism.
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
|
