RE: DTD for protocol-03?

Funny, we have somehow managed to implement the DAV drafts without
having to actually DTDs. I guess I will just have to go tell the
developers that what they have done is impossible. I'm sure they will be
pleased.

			Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Terry Allen [SMTP:tallen@sonic.net]
> Sent:	Tuesday, October 07, 1997 11:23 AM
> To:	ejw@ics.uci.edu; tallen@sonic.net; Yaron Goland
> Cc:	w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject:	RE: DTD for protocol-03?
> 
> Yaron Goland writes:
> | 2) The main XML rallying cry was "NO MORE DTDS!!" DTDs are a
> deprecated
> | syntax which is to be replaced by the XML Schema draft.
> 
> Whom are you quoting?  
> 
> | 3) DTDs are NOT required to validate XML syntax. DTDs are not
> required
> | for ANYTHING having to do with XML.
> 
> Dead wrong.  Try reading the spec.
> 
> | So given that we MUST provide a BNF definition and that DTDs are old
> | news, I see no reason to waste valuable time trying to maintain two
> | separate definitions of the same material. If and when the XML
> Schema
> | group produces a usable finished product I will be the first to
> support
> | its adoption, until then, time is a scarce resource and there is no
> | reason to waste it trying to write DTDs which only a tiny fraction
> of
> | our community can use.
> 
> Every member of "your community" can use a DTD for validating
> instances.
> Time is indeed a scarce resource; a DTD would provide a useful,
> compact,
> and machine-readable and -processable description of what is now only
> a long ordered list.  
> 
> 
> 
>   Terry Allen    Electronic Publishing Consultant
> tallen[at]sonic.net
>                    http://www.sonic.net/~tallen/
>     Davenport and DocBook:  http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html
>               at CNgroup:  terry.allen[at]cngroup.com

Received on Tuesday, 7 October 1997 16:59:41 UTC