- From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 14:47:13 -0700
- To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>, W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
The instance model of the two is almost identical, modulo the small differences I cited. The Japanese proposal suggests in addition a mechanism for combining DTDs. I don't make any proposal for or against combining DTDs. Well-formedness and validation are two different levels. The instance model permits well-formedness and unambiguous, infinitely extensible names. The DTD model would be responsible for integrating several namespaces to define validity. As the Japanese proposal shows, this is not difficult. Given that it is not difficult, and that validating DTDs can be created today (without waiting for a standard mechanism for combining DTDs) the exact details of the DTD issue are not an impediment to resolving the instance model. The proposed instance model simply says that, regardless of how the DTD is phrased, names consist of two parts: the namepace and the specific name.
Received on Monday, 26 May 1997 17:47:15 UTC