- From: Eve L. Maler <elm@arbortext.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 10:03:38 -0400
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: "Eve L. Maler" <elm@arbortext.com>, spec-prod@w3.org, elm@arbortext.com
Actually, I was thinking that I should just add a generic "constraint" (and "constraint note") and then you could use the role attribute to say the type. I think I will add this; if you wish, you can then change your namespace constraint elements over to this. Now that the DTD is parameterized, it is relatively reasonable to have "different" DTDs for different specs -- each can have a small customization layer that meets its needs. Eve At 12:32 AM 5/15/98 -0400, Tim Bray wrote: >At 07:52 PM 5/13/98 -0400, Eve L. Maler wrote: >>- Add the "namespace constraint" element? (Tim, let me know if you >> think I should add this to the main DTD; for now, I'm inclined to >> continue treating this as a customization layer, especially since >> it only applies to a single specification) > >Hmm, really we should've had a <constraint type=, hindsight >is so clear. Personally, I *hate* having different DTDs for >different specs. But you have a point. > > >
Received on Friday, 15 May 1998 10:06:34 UTC