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 18:00:12 +0200
Message-ID: <4071828C.8000602@mushroom-cloud.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

Ian asked me to forward his reply too...

-------- Original Message --------
From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Subject: Re: Why bother using DTDs?
In-Reply-To: <4071657B.5070703@mushroom-cloud.com>

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

Because there is a demand for them. (They have been in use since the mid
1980s, so there are many tools that require them.)


> why don't they provide better means for namespace based validation?

Limited resources, probably.


> 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.

Indeed, but the semantics of the elements (what they mean) didn't change,
and this is what namespaces are for: determining semantics.


> 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 DTDs are out of date and if Namespaces can't replace them, then we need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.

Ask the Schema group. :-)

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
U+1047E                                         /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 12:03:35 GMT

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