Re: Make DTDs optional?
At 01:54 AM 10/1/96 +1000, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>Is this really more what XML should be about: a markup language for
>presenting documents in the form required by the application? (Which
>would correspond to the normalised form of an SGML document when parsed
>against archetectural forms that model the XML application.) In other
>words, a temporary/application/closed-system format rather than a
>archiving/modelling/manipulation/open-system format like SGML.
If so, we should think hard about the internationalization issues. As Gavin
pointed out, it may be unnecessarily heavy handed of us to require a Java
applet to convert to UCS-2 (or worse, UTF-8) in order to pass a few bytes of
data to a Visual Basic script (which will process it as ASCII, reconvert it
back and pass it on to a database engine).
Perhaps we should err on the side of flexibility in this