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] DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part

[ 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_


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

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