- From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
- Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 16:28:42 -0400
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Terry Allen wrote: > This is not Paul's main concern in this post. To set the record straight, > for Docbook you would construct a customization layer consisting of > additional overriding parameter entities and associated stuff. You > wouldn't have to touch the DTD for most purposes. However, Docbook's > means of achieving this uses empty parameter entities, which I now > understand to be invalid in XML. I'll spend part of this weekend > removing them from my XMLized version of 3.0, which is now called > XDB 0.2 (available at http://www.sonic.net/~tallen/xdb02.zip). > I'd welcome correction on this point, or suggestions for other > methods of customization that are valid in XML. Even if you get it working, I don't consider modifying parameter entities and rewriting content models is a very easy way to add a single element to a DTD. Inclusions may be evil in SGML, but the XML alternative "just delete that DOCTYPE thing" seems worse to me. As far as future-SGML goes, I'm thinking that it should be possible to * extend the content model of an element whose existing content model is a simple or-group, * override an entity in a way that depends on the old entity, * (perhaps) prepend and append contents to a content model. * include content in some form of namespace. But for XML I guess I would be happy with a standard syntax for declaring the namespace that your elements come from: <?XML-TAGSET TEI PUBLIC "-//TEI//DTD TEI Lite 1.0//EN"?> You could "combine" DTDs by tagset-including more than one DTD. GI clash will be a problem, but a solvable one. GI clash wil only be a problem for the elements you actually use. For this to be meaningful, there would have to be a conformance level between well-formedness and validity. We would advocate (or even require) that XML documents live in the upper two levels. I hope I've demonstrated that the space between well-formedness and validity is HUGE and that we will lose big if we force authors to choose between flexibility/accurate generic markup and declared gi-semantic conformance to standard DTDs. Paul Prescod
Received on Saturday, 3 May 1997 16:36:43 UTC