Re: Using your own DTD (was Re: %flow and headers and address)

Mon, 30 Sep 1996 16:32:01 -0500 (EST)

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 16:32:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU>
Subject: Re: Using your own DTD (was Re: %flow and headers and address)
Message-id: <01IA3H8D1TKI008FHO@SCI.WFBR.EDU> (Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet) wrote:
>In article <01IA33A6ZMNS0090D7@SCI.WFBR.EDU>,
>Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU> wrote:
>> if it can, such that any other client could implement any or all
>> of it rationally, and any provider could include any combination
>> in a document instance and pass that to a validator.
>Interesting side-note: suppose I write my documents to adhere to
>such a non-official DTD. How can I pass them to a validator if
>that validator does not have that DTD available? Can I use the
>DOCTYPE declaration to point to the DTD (assuming I put it on the Web)?
>I've seen many documents with
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF/DTD HTML 3.0//" "html.dtd">
>which is obvious incorrect, but does the last bit imply you can
>provide an URL to your own DTD to be used?

	I don't know how you are using the term "official", nor want
to get into a semantic debate about it. :) :)

	I was assuming that Peter would offer his composite DTD for
public discussion by all interested persons, and would amend it
toward some consensus of what would be most useful to as many of
those interested persons as possible, as well as making his own
judgements based on his expertise in SGML.

	I don't see why the current two validation services would
object to including a DTD developed in that way, together with the
others they support.

	A lot of what will be "restored" in it was designed to
degrade gracefully for clients which do not support it.  But
using it is presently problematic with respect to validation
if you also use markup developed since, and not in, the (expired)


 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545