RE: Latest draft and Schema / DTD

I agree (mostly) with Don - working towards having both a DTD and Schema based 
specification in the document is desirable.  In addition, having also struggled 
with the expressive limitations of the DTD syntax, a schema based spec seems 
like the right long term target.  However, since the schema syntax is still 
evolving, I think the normative version still has to be the DTD (for now).

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dee3 [mailto:dee3@torque.pothole.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 4:44 PM
> To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig
> Cc: dee3
> Subject: Re: Latest draft and Schema / DTD
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhhh..., I really didn't mean to start a big thread.  I think Schemas
> are fine, I just want the DTDs there also, for this document...
> 
> Donald
> 
> From:  "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org>
> Message-Id:  <3.0.5.32.19991112094045.009e7d10@localhost>
> X-Sender:  reagle@localhost
> Date:  Fri, 12 Nov 1999 09:40:45 -0500
> To:  "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
> Cc:  dee3@torque.pothole.com, "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" 
> <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>,
>             David Solo <david.solo@citicorp.com>
> In-Reply-To:  <199911120537.AAA16123@torque.pothole.com>
> Content-Type:  text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >At 00:37 99/11/12 -0500, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd wrote:
> > >I didn't understand that you were going to totally banish DTDs.
> > >
> > >As far as I know, there are essentially no tools that process the
> > >current W3C Schema draft.  I think that DTDs will be the dominant
> > >description of XML for validation, etc., for at least a year to 18
> > >months and will continue to be very useful for at least five to ten
> > >years.  Under these circumstances dropping DTDs entirely from the
> > >draft greatly reduces its value is a real dis-service to the
> > >community.
> > 
> >DTDs simply do not permit us to do what we would like to do 
> [1], and our XML
> >will be used in many circumstances that will not XML 
> validate anyway. In the
> >XML context TimBL has suggested that this activity among 
> others use schemas
> >[2].
> >
> >I'd ask that we keep the schema declarations I've used in 
> the draft we are
> >working on until we post it early next week and the WG can 
> discuss it.
> >
> >
> >[1] http://xml.com/pub/1999/07/schemas/dtds.html
> >[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/1999OctDec/0023.html
> >
> >Message-ID: <011101bf2af1$79e15a40$e5061812@ridge.w3.org>
> >From: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
> >To: <chairs@w3.org>
> >Cc: "xml-dev" <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>, <w3c-xml-plenary@w3.org>
> >Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:31:59 -0500
> >Subject: Schemas coming of age: use them
> >
> >Agenda item for chairs meeting:
> >
> >As I have mentioned in various fora including the AC 
> meeting, xml schemas
> >are coming of age.  It is no longer appropriate for a W3C 
> activity to say
> >"well, we won't use them because they aren't here yet". They 
> are here --
> >there are drafts which you can read and use.
> >
> >It is now appropriate for any group developing a W3C xml 
> application (such
> >as P3P, xHTML, etc) to use namespaces and schemas.  These 
> should be seen as
> >the first, very important, test cases for schema: if 
> xml-schema language
> >won't do what you want it to do, then get it fixed.
> >
> >Working across more groups takes time but it leads to a 
> consistent result.
> >Let's  make sure everything fits together at this stage!
> >
> >Keep up the good work, everyone.
> >
> >Tim
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________
> >Joseph Reagle Jr.   
> >Policy Analyst           mailto:reagle@w3.org
> >XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
> >
> 
>