- From: Terry Allen <tallen@sonic.net>
- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:22:51 -0700
- To: ejw@ics.uci.edu, tallen@sonic.net, yarong@microsoft.com
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Yaron Goland writes:
| 2) The main XML rallying cry was "NO MORE DTDS!!" DTDs are a deprecated
| syntax which is to be replaced by the XML Schema draft.
Whom are you quoting?
| 3) DTDs are NOT required to validate XML syntax. DTDs are not required
| for ANYTHING having to do with XML.
Dead wrong. Try reading the spec.
| So given that we MUST provide a BNF definition and that DTDs are old
| news, I see no reason to waste valuable time trying to maintain two
| separate definitions of the same material. If and when the XML Schema
| group produces a usable finished product I will be the first to support
| its adoption, until then, time is a scarce resource and there is no
| reason to waste it trying to write DTDs which only a tiny fraction of
| our community can use.
Every member of "your community" can use a DTD for validating instances.
Time is indeed a scarce resource; a DTD would provide a useful, compact,
and machine-readable and -processable description of what is now only
a long ordered list.
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 Tuesday, 7 October 1997 14:23:14 UTC