- From: Peter Flynn <pflynn@curia.ucc.ie>
- Date: 03 May 1997 20:58:45 +0100
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 07:43 03/05/97 -0400, you wrote: >Let's say that I am an XML user. I am happy with, say, the DocBook DTD, >but need to insert a chemical formula in CML format. Or perhaps I want >to insert something more mundane, some small element that does not have >an expression in DocBook: Having annoyed the hell out of Eve, Terry, and other Davenporters while fudging together the FAQ, I can synthesize with this one, as they say. (You can see the result in the FAQ: DocBook with HTML forms and math :-) >world. People will just remove the DOCTYPE line and depend on >well-formedness. But having removed the DOCTYPE line, they have now >taken all responsibility for the semantics of that document upon >themselves. It can no longer be validated. Incidentally, I have assumed that WF documents, because they have no DTD are, strictly speaking, not SGML. And you cannot use attributes in WF documents, ever? (I may have missed something here: I need to have this right for the FAQ). >In my mind this is where the rubber meets the road. The rubber is >generic markup, where the needs of the data are paramount: add an >element if you need it. The road is the Internet where interoperability >is paramount. It seems to me that in XML it is too hard to balance these >factors. I'm guessing but I don't think it is impossible to make XML versions of popular and useful DTDs that are modular and easily modifiable. But it would be way easier with some tools: in making HTML Pro it was easier because I used Near&Far to cut and paste chunks of many DTDs, then tidy them up in the exported ASCII file. But this is not user-level manipulability. >I don't think that we can make it easy to combine DTDs without changing >SGML. But maybe we can figure out a way to declare a namespace for >elements: to "import" element names in a standard way. You wouldn't be >able to validate the document but at least it would be clear what the >elements MEAN. This borders on AF for XML, and I don't see that in the workplan. My $0.02 is that we are going to NEED, really need, a simple way to convey to an XML browser "Hi, this is my DTD (or WF instance) and on this occasion I have used <FOO> for a table, <BAR> for rows, and <BLORT> for cells. Please carry on". Right now we can only interoperate at the stylesheet level, and I don't see AFs in stylesheets (yet?) ///Peter
Received on Saturday, 3 May 1997 15:58:36 UTC