RE: How to use DTDs, or not to (was: RE: ACL and lockdiscovery)

> > So does this mean we should simply remove the DTD-style 
> definition of 
> > the 'prop' element (as well as 'owner' and 'resourcetype') from the 
> > spec?  I believe the natural-language specification should be 
> > sufficient to define these anyway.
> 
> The drawback would be that this would break the DTD's syntax. 
> An alternative is to keep ANY, and make sure that the 
> description says what this actually means.
> 
It wouldn't break the DTD syntax if we only use DTD fragments to 
formally define those elements that can be formally defined.  I thought
the idea of omitting the full combined DTD appendix was a generally
acceptable idea, as long as the DTD fragments were still there
for most of the elements.

Lisa