Re: XML Editors

Tim Bray wrote:
> 

> >II. Under the category of (b) above, assuming we continue down the road of
> >defining XML in such a fashion that it does not include a complete DTD
> 
> No.  This is also the crux of what's bothering Len, and I think it's really
> a non-issue.  I,and I think most people involved in this, absolutely definitely
> do envision having the equivalent of an SGML Markup Declaration.

[snipped for brevity]

Yes.  I am understanding better, but after the VRML experience in which
Sony took a body blow by assuming too much, I am trying to be very sure.
IOW, Trust But Verify.  It is good to get past this early, so a little 
patience while the chickens figure out what the roosters have been
doing.

We have been working with the model for some years in our products 
that simplifying the features and using a stylesheet allowed us 
to accept an SGML instance for processing without requiring the DTD.
That is why in IDE/AS, the validation is via batch use of SGMLS.
We always envisioned that a validating editor was involved in
the process.  The practical truth is, we note, the users typically 
revert to text editors once they know the DTD, and batch validate
ad hoc because the stylesheet processor catches most of their 
mistakes.  A clipboard is a powerful tool.  Our design intent is to 
allow the user to decide just how tightly their processes run.

There are other issues which will come up in later phases in which
the DTD plays a role in hyperlinking, but under the proviso that 
a DTD can be written and can be sent, these issues do not concern me
yet.

len bullard
lockheed martin

Received on Friday, 13 September 1996 17:51:29 UTC