[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: XML and required DTDs



Charles writes:

>  
>  On Mon, 16 Sep 1996 16:52:44 -0400, "Steven J. DeRose" <sjd@ebt.com> wrote:
>  
>  >The only things blocking you from parsing one-entity minimal SGML document
>  >without a DTD are:
>  >
>  >   a) Declared content (CDATA/RCDATA/EMPTY elements)
>  >   b) The RE-ignoring rules.
>  >
>
>  Exactly! Just eliminate declared content and mixed content and
>  you've solved the problem. We don't need those constructs for XML,
>  they are just forms of markup minimization parading under other
>  names.

That analysis is correct, but it would in my view none-the-less be a
mistake to go down that road.  It would grandfather out a huge
percentage of existing documents, and require huge amounts of
obfuscatory markup, e.g.

<p><vc>The</vc><ship>Gretel</ship><vc>lost to</vc><ship>Constitution
</ship><vc>in</vc><date>1966</date><vc>.</vc></p>

[vc for 'vanilla content']

Or are you assuming we are allowing tag minimisation after all?  I
thought it was out the door . . .

ht

[apologies to Americas' Cup mavens, I know the second name and date are
probably wrong]


Follow-Ups: References: