[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> The XML Core Working Group is welcome to hide behind the bulwark of "use
> the Internal DTD Subset" for as long as they want, while developers come
> up with alternatives or merely curse the dark.
>
> If the WG is content with the W3C's having effectively (if horribly)
> deprecated half the capabilities of DTDs while they still promote the
> other half, there's really not a damn thing we can do about it. However
> poorly internal DTDs solve the problem, they do solve it.
>
> It's time to get on with developing better solutions, whether or not the
> supposed core is interested.
In terms of alternatives for the syntax-constraint part of schemas,
we're in good shape with RNG and WXS and so on. One of the problems
with DTDs historically is that they were used to do about 5 unrelated
things, and one of these unrelated things (giving human-readable names
to less-used characters) has lagged behind the pack.
In termes of cost/benefit analysis, it's just that the high cost of
figuring out and standardizing and deploying another way of doing this
may not pay for itself. Although it would be nice to have a better way.
-Tim
|
