- From: Digitome Ltd. <digitome@iol.ie>
- Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 11:48:11 +0000
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
[Peter Flynn] >That's the very problem...I would not expect all browsers to adhere to >HyTime, whether it is prescribed/recommended/whatever in the XML spec >or not; and in any event, our discussion seems to turn on the precise >aspect of this which causes the difficulty -- what to do with DTD-less >`instances' [Eliot Kimber] DTD-less instances is a good point and a strong argument for using attributes only when you expect your data to be used in such an environment. ^^^^^^ During the Genesis of XML authors might say to themselves:- "Some XML browsers support DTDs. Some do not. For widest possible coverage with my XML docs I should aim at the lowest common denominator XML implementation. Therefore I will do Hypertext entirely via attributes. Therefore I have to do a ton of extra markup in my docs:-( After the promised land is reached, and all XML browsers support DTDs this will result in a "legacy XML" situation where Hypertext etc. has been hard-wired via attributes and thus that much more difficult to maintain :-(((" Is this the case? If so, the only way of circumventing this that I can see is getting the browser and the server to hand-shake to agree on the browsers capabilities. DTD-Challenged XML Client gets a "SPAMmed" version of the XML document. DTD-Aware XML CLient gets Instance + DTD. This preserves the XML doc is a maintainable state (easy to change AF stuff in DTD and have the changes refelected immediately in the instances) whilst avoiding creating hard-wired instances. Regards, Sean Mc Grath digitome@iol.ie
Received on Sunday, 5 January 1997 06:08:44 UTC