Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 08:33:39 -0500
IMO, the non XML format is only a pain for a parser
writer. For the author, once learned, I think it
easy and comfortable, particularly as I've said
before, because one doesn't get lost in element elementness
or attribute attributeness. It is easier to think of
the element declaration as having a content model
that has multiple parts than to wrap oneself around
complex and simple types.
It's easier to teach too.
And yes, not having a lot of primitive types can
be an advantage given code that does the post
structural validation. Strings are what are wanted
if one does not intend to have the parser-centric
software do type validation. No, GIs are NOT types
anymore than PE names are types. One can use them that way
if one chooses, but leave the choice open.
I'd drop parameter entities.
They tend to obscure the DTD, suggest that it has
more semantics than are really there, and end up
being a form of documentation implying semantic groups
that can be just accidents of structure.
len (just another SGML Luddite)
From: Dennis Sosnoski [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Simplicity and terseness are at the top of my list. The only real
problem with using DTDs now is Namespaces. The non-XML format is a pain,
but less so than the verbosity and complexity of Schemas. DTDs are
simple enough that they don't really require any special tools, in my
experience; Schemas do.