RE: DTD for protocol-03?

DTDs are NOT necessary for XML and in fact are seen as being deprecated
by many parts of the XML community. Furthermore the DTD syntax is not
well known amongst the HTTP community, of which DAV is a member, while
BNF is.

Given that providing a DTD is not necessity for XML and that we will
still have to provide our current syntax I propose that we add DTDs, as
an appendix, to the final draft. Until we reach that final draft, there
is little point in having to maintain two sets of definitions.

			Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jim Whitehead [SMTP:ejw@ics.uci.edu]
> Sent:	Monday, October 06, 1997 4:42 PM
> To:	'Terry Allen'
> Cc:	'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'
> Subject:	RE: DTD for protocol-03?
> 
> I'm not really sure what you men by a "qualified GI", but I suspect
> your 
> question can be restated as: do you intend to produce a spec. which
> uses 
> the more standard SGML/XML type syntax for specifying the numerous XML
> 
> elements used in the spec.?  To date we haven't done this, not due to
> any 
> technical reasons, but more due to lack of knowledge of how to specify
> 
> elements using the SGML/XML format.  Given that this is the more
> standard 
> way of specifying those elements, I think it best if in a future
> release of 
> the protocol spec. we switch over to this format.
> 
> Given this, can you recommend a good source which explains the
> SGML/XML 
> specification mechanism?
> 
> - Jim
> 
> On Saturday, October 04, 1997 2:13 PM, Terry Allen
> [SMTP:tallen@sonic.net] 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > For webdav-protocol-03, can a DTD be constructed using the names of
> > the elements (which appear as qualified GIs in examples such as
> 2.8.5.5)?
> > If so, has anyone made such a DTD and is it available?
> >
> > Regards, Terry Allen
> >
> >   Terry Allen    Electronic Publishing Consultant
> tallen[at]sonic.net
> >                    http://www.sonic.net/~tallen/
> >     Davenport and DocBook:  http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html
> >               at CNgroup:  terry.allen[at]cngroup.com
> >

Received on Monday, 6 October 1997 21:16:04 UTC