- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:06:27 -0700
- To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>, "'Geoffrey M Clemm'" <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> > So does this mean we should simply remove the DTD-style > definition of > > the 'prop' element (as well as 'owner' and 'resourcetype') from the > > spec? I believe the natural-language specification should be > > sufficient to define these anyway. > > The drawback would be that this would break the DTD's syntax. > An alternative is to keep ANY, and make sure that the > description says what this actually means. > It wouldn't break the DTD syntax if we only use DTD fragments to formally define those elements that can be formally defined. I thought the idea of omitting the full combined DTD appendix was a generally acceptable idea, as long as the DTD fragments were still there for most of the elements. Lisa
Received on Friday, 17 October 2003 15:07:24 UTC