[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Yet Another Way To Do Mostly The Same Thing. ;-)
The compact syntax is a proof that DTDs weren't
that bad to begin with (the argument that the
syntax was confusing for HTMLers, etc.) And
if one ever saw a line of BNF, DTDs are a slam
dunk. It may depend on one's background.
But the point is well taken that RELAX NG has more
upside potential. Unfortuntately, the US Government
is taking steps to outlaw it's use for Federal
work. :-(
len
From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" scripsit:
> 1. DTDs are the easiest of the schema technologies to learn. Really.
> Compared to other candidates, the basics come quickly. And in
> XML, much easier than SGML. Faster to type too.
Can't agree with you there. RELAX NG has equally easy basics, more upside
potential, and its compact syntax is even faster to type than DTDs -- less
use of the Shift key.
- Prev by Date:
Re: [xml-dev] dtds, schemas, xhtml, and multimedia technologies
- Next by Date:
Re: [xml-dev] dtds, schemas, xhtml, and multimedia technologies
- Previous by thread:
Re: [xml-dev] Does WTSIWYG make simplicity moot? (was Re: [xml-dev] dtds, schemas, xhtml, and multimedia technologies)
- Next by thread:
Re: [xml-dev] dtds, schemas, xhtml, and multimedia technologies
- Index(es):
|