W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2004

[Fwd: Re: Why bother using DTDs?]

From: Alan Plum <ashmodai@mushroom-cloud.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 17:59:01 +0200
Message-ID: <40718245.7080100@mushroom-cloud.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

Argh. Must find way to make Thunderbird answer lists, not senders.

-------- Original Message --------
From: Alan Plum <ashmodai@mushroom-cloud.com>
Subject: Re: Why bother using DTDs?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0404051314270.10470@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Alan Plum wrote:
> 
>>Where is the point in bothering with DTD validity any longer, when there
>>is already XML Schema?
> 
> 
> Who said there was a point?

If there's no point, why does the W3C still publish DTDs and why don't
they provide better means for namespace based validation?

> 
>>I also don't see why XHTML 1.0 (Strict|Transitional|Frameset) and XHTML
>>1.1 share the same namespace, although they would hardly share the same
>>schema.
> 
> 
> Because elements in those two languages have the same semantics.

Yes, but unless I missed something some elements changed in between.
Frameset has frame elements that are not in Strict or Transitional,
Transitional and Frameset have presentational elements that are not in
Strict, XHTML 1.1 has stuff that is not in XHTML 1.0 et vice versa.
If namespaces should not change with the version, then why not provide
some other means to show the version but Doctype headers?

DTDs are out of date and if Namespaces can't replace them, then we need
something that can. If Namespaces can, then we need a way to let them.

-Alan
Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 12:02:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:00 GMT