Re: 10 September 1998 version of XMLspec DTD and documentation

Yep, I'm aware that the XML V1.0 specification is out of sync with the
progression of the DTD.  There are actually a few more differences that
I've noted, too.  The variability of the status and abstract positioning is
new to me, but I can add that.

I've committed to producing a version of the DTD that works with the
original spec for people's convenience, though I've cleverly avoided
committing to a specific date... :-)  I hope it will be soon; thanks for
the reminder and the design notes.

	Eve

At 04:20 PM 10/13/98 -0700, Lauren Wood wrote:
>On 14 Sep 98, at 16:06, Eve L. Maler wrote:
>
>Hello all-- I've now made public the latest version of the XML 
>specification DTD:
>
>DTD:http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/06/xmlspec-
>19980910.dtd
>Documentation:http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/06/xmlspec-
>report-19980910.htm
>
>
>Hi Eve,
>
>I notice that the XML spec doesn't currently match up to this DTD. There
are a few small things that need to be done to make it match:
>
>1) add the attribute "align" to table: the html-tbl.mod file originally
used had 
>          align         (left|center|right)         "left"
>
>2) add the attribute "bgcolor" to td: the html-tbl.mod file originally 
>had
>        bgcolor         CDATA           #IMPLIED
>
>3) The XML spec uses xml:link, whereas the newer DTD uses 
>xlink:form. I guess this problem is going to keep on happening; I'd 
>personally rather keep the xml:link form until the XLink WG has 
>figured out what they're doing. But I don't feel all that strongly 
>about it. 
>
>4) The abstract and status seem to switch positions depending on 
>the WG. The DTD just needs to have 
>((status, abstract)|(abstract,status))
>instead of 
>status,abstract
>in the content model of header.mdl
>
>cheers,
>
>
>Lauren
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 October 1998 13:02:55 UTC