[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Brothers, Michael (IA)" scripsit:
> I'm still
> waiting for the definitive answer on why DTD's are not the answer. Seems to
> me they are damn good at modeling information systems. I'm just a lowly
> business major and I can understand them and model with them. Ooops,
> probably just answered my own question. Why use something simple when
> something 5000 times more obtuse will do the job? Sheesh!
DTDs are behind the times. They can't do namespaces without Stupid Parameter
Entity Tricks. They can't do datatypes, except the few that are built in.
They aren't very flexible: a given element has to be the same thing everywhere.
Their syntax is picky and ugly.
Post your favorite DTD and see how its readability can be greatly
improved -- and not with something "5000 times more obtuse".
--
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_
|
