Re: XML and required DTDs
Paul Grosso wrote:
> The scenario I see is as follows: my customer uses Adept to create an
> XML compliant document that conforms to a DTD and they send that to
> someone else who uses a public domain XML editor that doesn't use
> DTDs. That other person will modify the document in the XML editor and
> will very likely do something so that the document no longer complies
> with the DTD my customer used to create it. Then the other person
> returns the document to my customer who tries to bring it up in Adept
> and can't. Or, maybe Adept is smart enough in "XML mode" to
> auto-provide declarations for undeclared elements and to ignore
> contexts that are not permitted by the DTD. Then my customer goes to
> re-insert that document into their SGML repository, the the database
> integrated with Adept can't accept the invalid document.
> Does all this give either my products and/or SGML itself a black eye?
Paul, what is the difference between your first scenario and one in
(gad, i disklike that phrase), in which an instance arrives with or
a DTD, the author opens it in a text editor, makes non-conforming
changes, then returns it without parsing it? IOW, isn't that a
process glitch and is actually the common case? It is why we teach
them to ensure two transmission sites are using the same version of
a DTD. SGML gets a black eye in this case only if the users aren't
really analysing the problem.
The case is different if XML explicitly allows dynamic instancing of new
declarations in the presense of a DTD sent by the original author. In
that case, the user MUST return the modified DTD and notify the receiver
that it has been modified if that modification requires adjustment of
any device (database, filter, etc) that processes the information.
XML gets a black eye if the XML vendor doesn't tell the customer what
the consequences of using the dynamic features can be. In that case,
yes, it is a marketing/training problem.
Am I understanding you correctly?