- From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 08:08:54 -0500
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
lee@sq.com wrote: > Why isn't the catalog file itself in XML? I think that the CATALOG is easier to process, for our Perl Hacker, even if she has a rudimentary XML parser, because she may only have code to parse a fixed DTD. I will go this far with you, though: there are too many undifferentiated ASCII/Unicode file formats in the universe. Catalogs should at least look like this: <!DOCTYPE CATALOG PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XML CATALOG 1.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/unknown/right/now"> <CATALOG> PUBLIC ... PUBLIC ... OTHER ... </CATALOG> For parsing simplicity we could require the DOCTYPE to be hardcoded and the start tags and end tags to be on their own. The DTD would of course be a very simple wrapper. At some later date we could even figure out how to express the catalog in terms of an SGML declaration and DTD that actually captured the structure of it so that the conversion from catalog to grove could be well defined. Paul Prescod
Received on Monday, 31 March 1997 08:06:25 UTC