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

Re: C.4 Undeclared entities?



At 11:36 PM 10/24/96, Charles F. Goldfarb wrote:
>O.K. It is now clear that in XML a document "without a DTD" means literally
>that, and not just "parsable without reference to  its DTD". I think this is
>unfortunate because I believe it will render XML a non-starter in the
>marketplace.

I'm dubious about this. See below.

>I hope someone can prove me wrong by rebutting the following proposition
>(formal
>mathematical proof not required):
>
>XML without a DTD is no different from HTML extended by the ability to
>"add tags
>and attributes" just by defining processing for the additions in a style sheet
>(cascading or otherwise).

This is exactly correct, except that XML allows you to create a DTD, and
HTML does not. Thus you have an opportunity to organize your tag salad,
once you realize that you want to keep your Garbazos from getting mixed up
with your Succotash.

Given the relative success of HTML and SGML in the marketplace of the Web,
I'll take my chances with a DTD-less option for XML.

I also thing that automatic DTD generation will be a useful tool to help
naive users develop DTDs by starting with example documents.

   -- David


RE delenda est.
I am not a number. I am an undefined character.
_________________________________________
David Durand              dgd@cs.bu.edu  \  david@dynamicDiagrams.com
Boston University Computer Science        \  Sr. Analyst
http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/   \  Dynamic Diagrams
--------------------------------------------\  http://dynamicDiagrams.com/
MAPA: mapping for the WWW                    \__________________________
http://www.dynamicdiagrams.com/services_map_main.html



Follow-Ups: