- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 14:53:14 -0400
- To: "Eve L. Maler" <Eve.Maler@east.sun.com>
- Cc: mrose@invisible.net, spec-prod@w3.org
At 11:06 AM 6/13/00 -0400, Eve L. Maler wrote:
>I'm happy to collaborate on designing a joint DTD. I have a suspicion
that
>the header requirements are pretty different, but this could be
>modularized.
This is actually what I'm most interested in. If you are writing a W3C spec,
you don't have to worry about the expires field. If you are writing an IETF
spec you don't have to worry about the latest version field. But if you are
writing for both it's easy (one document, two XSLTs), and it'll pool our
experiences in writing a spec schema/dtd for everything else.
>In fact, there's already a parameter entity in the XMLspec
>DTD that allows you to substitute your own stuff. Please note that the
>latest XMLspec information is at the following locations:
>
>http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/06/xmlspec-report-v21.htm
>http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/06/xmlspec-v21.dtd
>
>(I think there may be something funny going on with the "latest version"
>links provided in the documentation, so stick with the specific V2.1 links
>for now.)
I started my unsuccessful path in finding the latest version at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/spec.dtd
which states:
># "http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/DTD/xmlspec.dtd">
>...
> For all details, see the design report at:
> <http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/DTD/xmlspec-report.htm>
Neither of which exist ...
_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.
W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2000 14:55:27 UTC