- From: Paul Grosso <paul@arbortext.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:14:15 -0400
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, "Eve L. Maler" <elm@arbortext.com>
- Cc: "Eve L. Maler" <elm@arbortext.com>, spec-prod@w3.org, elm@arbortext.com
At 10:17 1998 05 15 -0400, Tim Bray wrote: >At 10:03 AM 5/15/98 -0400, Eve L. Maler wrote: >>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. > >Good idea. And adds a bit of future-proofing. > >>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. > >Well, for the record, this is a relatively small family of docs, and I >think it'd be worth the effort to stay with a single DTD until there's >a really good reason to split. Despite good agruments mentioned in Lauren's follow up to this, I do tend to agree with Tim here. It would be really nice to have one DTD rather than customization layers insofar as possible. It just makes setup and style files and interchange and all so much easier.
Received on Friday, 15 May 1998 12:14:36 UTC