[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 03:36 PM 11/1/2002 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
>First, in background I would say that HTML is not an XML Schema *based*
>language, the semantics of HTML are described in written prose and
>implemented in compiled code, the schema provides error checking and
>redundant expression of some of the constraints.
I think that's splitting hairs -- you know as well as I do that moving
forward the HTML WG has been tasked with defining XHTML using Schemas.
--
You wouldn't reasonably ask that your schema also functioned as your
stylesheet, or your compression engine, or any number of other things; it's
just far from obvious that funny-character-naming is a thing that a schema
should do.
No, I wouldn't. However, with the exception of the stylesheet mentioned, I
wouldn't expect a consumer of my language to have to define and develop
those items either. That's what we're asking for when you say 'just create
a DTD for the entities'.
(When reading my arguments, please keep in mind that I'm not arguing solely
in regards to the development of XHTML. We will always have a DTD and/or
schema. However, not all documents will, and therein, in my opinion, lies
the rub).
Ann
|
