Re: XHTML Namespace Schema

> I was curious whether others felt that it's important to hold
> on to DTDs anyway?

I'm not at all sure: maybe it's because it the only "W3C approved" way
of denoting the XHTML content model, maybe it's because it's the
easiest way (currently) to validate XHTML. But I mean really, out of
all of the sites in the world, how many are valid (X)HTML?

> What are the reasons for continuing to force authors to stick silly
> DOCTYPEs at the top of the page?

Well, there are none, which was basically why I was asking what the
nature and purpose of the namespace would be. Having a fragment of
XHTML sans that prologue would be a lot neater IMO. Still, many people
disagree, but I have not yet found a single cogent arguement that
tells me once and for all why you should have a doctype dec. There are
advantages and disadvantages, but people take the advantages as being
final proof, and the opponents (usually XML Schema people) take the
opposite view.

I think that DTDs and XSDs aren't great ways of denoting content
models - DTDs aren't in XML, and XSDs don't have decent entity
representation, etc., so it's a case of the lesser of two evils
really. I'd go with XSD because it means you can just use the ol'
namespace... that to me is the neatest way in which text/html can be

Maybe the W3C should support RDDL and RELAX/TREX etc.? I don't see why
people should be forced to use DTDs or XSD. Dynamic validation sounds
good as well... document profiles anyone?

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <> .

Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2001 12:14:07 UTC