[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 22:48 4.2.2005, you wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 10:20:42PM +0200, Toni Uusitalo wrote:
> >I guess that's inevitable progress to go and dump the DTDs.
> >There must be some research going on that measures when people are
> >ready to switch to the alternatives, I've no clue about this thing myself
> >(about usage numbers of DTDs or RelaxNG etc.).
>
>For a number of application areas (especially "document" related areas, as
>opposed to "data," for whatever that distinction is worth), there is
>currently no way to move away from DTDs, because entities cannot be defined
>except in DTDs (that's general parsed entities, not parameter entities or
>unparsed entities, which have narrower usage/appeal).
>
>At present, there's no apparent activity targeted toward providing an
>alternate entity-definition mechanism.
Yes. I've seen for example general parsed entities used in the schemas for
regexp
pattern "macros" and thus there being DOCTYPE only for declaring
those entities.
I've nothing against DTDs and entities myself and so forth, it might be
that they
don't appeal to most people (to the average programmer perhaps - not to the
docheads)
because they don't use XML syntax - but as I wrote, I'd be interested in
seeing some
usage numbers of DTD vs. schema vs. RelaxNG etc.
with respect,
Toni Uusitalo
|
