Re: Documentation for DTDs (was HDML DTD)

At 6:22 PM 6/22/97, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>In message <v01540b02afd331e6d5ad@[207.60.235.9]> davep@acm.org (Dave
>Peterson) writes:
>> At 6:09 AM 6/22/97, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:

>> Most such machine-readable "documentation" is dependent on the system doing
>> the reading.  That's just what PIs in the DTD are for.  Is that what you're
>> arguing for?
>
>Does this mean that there is a standard way of documenting DTDs using PIs?

No, and I cringe at calling it "machine-readable documentation";  Any comment
in the DTD, or an MS Word file of text meant for humans is "machine
readable".  I was guessing you meant "machine-*understandable* documentation",
i.e., information about the DTD that was in a form that a computer program
could act on when processing the document.

Dave Peterson
SGMLWorks!

davep@acm.org