[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
aray@nyct.net (Arjun Ray) writes:
>| DTDs emerge from an understanding of what markup does, but both do
>| too much (infoset augmentation)
>
>Well, that's if one assumes there is a "the infoset" to be so
>augmented.
Fair enough. I'm using a more recent term to describe the actions of
something that existed long before, and it reeks of anachronism.
>I think John Cowan once clarified that the Infoset Rec actually
>specifies only "an infoset", and not in any way "the infoset" in some
>normatively exclusive sense (though "derivative" specs of late seem
>quite eager to treat it so).
John is wisely modest about the Infoset. I'm very glad that work wasn't
done by, uh, more eager people.
>| and too little (modularization is an interesting challenge.)
>
>Actually, that isn't a problem with DTDs as much as it's a problem
>with the (implicit) validation model. That is, if you assume that a
>DTD will be comprehensive about a document (an "encompassing
>architecture" to the HyTime folks) then modularization is a definite
>challenge. Of course, DTDs were originally developed with
>comprehensiveness in mind only, but it's possible to relax the default
>scope and apply particular DTDs to only parts of a document (as in
>"enabling architectures"). For example, RNG can take a "maximal fit"
>rather than a "complete fit" view of validation. Similarly, it's
>possible to assume the moral equivalent of (#DONTCARE) as the content
>model of some elements, and thus delegate subtree validation
>constraints to other DTDs.
I think this is a more complicated field. Modularization always is, and
I was shocked to see the what lurks behind the TEI Pizza Chef. Working
with DocBook (to take the example I deal with most frequently) is
simpler, but it can still be fun to wander through the parameter
entities, even in my employer's semi-simplified version.
Generally speaking, I'm happier working with RELAX NG at this point than
with DTDs, but I still use (and even sometimes enjoy) DTDs on a regular
basis.
>That said, *XML* DTDs are utterly crippled in relation to SGML DTDs,
>and even those lack expressive power in some areas.
I've only read SGML DTDs, never created them, so I'm definitely not
qualified to comment.
>| [...] while DTDs do too little, and extending them requires a lot of
>|ad hoc work.
>
>If you mean things like PE games to shoehorn colonified names, that's a
>colossal waste of time and energy indeed.
That's a particular case of perverse brilliance. I'm amazed that the
loopholes for making it work proved usable, but it's no fun to work
through loopholes.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
