RE: [xml-dev] DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

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:dms@sosnoski.com]


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.