W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > April to June 1998

Re: Working on a new version of the XML spec DTD

From: Eve L. Maler <elm@arbortext.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 10:03:38 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980515100338.00a30a60@village.promanage-inc.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: "Eve L. Maler" <elm@arbortext.com>, spec-prod@w3.org, elm@arbortext.com
Actually, I was thinking that I should just add a generic "constraint" (and
"constraint note") and then you could use the role attribute to say the
type.  I think I will add this; if you wish, you can then change your
namespace constraint elements over to this.

Now that the DTD is parameterized, it is relatively reasonable to have
"different" DTDs for different specs -- each can have a small customization
layer that meets its needs.

	Eve

At 12:32 AM 5/15/98 -0400, Tim Bray wrote:
>At 07:52 PM 5/13/98 -0400, Eve L. Maler wrote:
>>- Add the "namespace constraint" element?  (Tim, let me know if you 
>>  think I should add this to the main DTD; for now, I'm inclined to
>>  continue treating this as a customization layer, especially since
>>  it only applies to a single specification)
>
>Hmm, really we should've had a <constraint type=, hindsight
>is so clear.  Personally, I *hate* having different DTDs for
>different specs.  But you have a point.
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 15 May 1998 10:06:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:09 GMT