W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > May 1997

Re: SD4 - Schema format

From: len bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 18:44:49 -0500
Message-ID: <337CF171.7006@hiwaay.net>
To: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
CC: Robert Streich <streich@slb.com>, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Paul Prescod wrote:
> > And I don't think that the argument that many of us already use instance
> > syntax for describing DTDs is valid either. The reason that we use
> > instance syntax for DTDs is because we want to keep marked up
> > documentation with the declarations. If SGML DTDs did use instance
> > syntax, we'd still have a "DTD for DTDs" of our own, for example.
> This is massively important. I am also working on a DTD for DTDs. But it
> has very special needs: it models an object inheritance tree and generates
> C++ code and SGML DTDs for describing 3D scenes. If DTDs were in instance
> format I would just be generating instances rather than traditional DTDs.
> A DTD *architecture* might be useful. DTDs as SGML documents are not
> really.
> > In fact, proposals SD3-4 make me convinced that the only way to stay
> > on track is to simply create an XML application that describes schemata,
> > i.e., an XML DTD (current syntax) for creating schemata of all types,
> > one of which could be XML DTDs.
> Can we do this properly in the time we have? I mean the programming languages
> people are still arguing about type systems. The database people are just
> beginning their arguing as they try to figure out object databases. And we
> markup language people have hardly thought about the issue in any structured
> way.

There have been DTDs to Model DTD projects prior to this.  
One was done in Europe.  I don't have URLs for this, but 
perhaps a little research into these would be prudent.

len bullard
Received on Friday, 16 May 1997 19:45:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:26 UTC