- From: Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP] <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:26:15 +0100
- CC: www-html@w3.org
Lachlan Cannon wrote: > > Philip TAYLOR [PC335/O-XP] wrote: > > Many thanks, Jonny : so if I understand correctly > > (after an admittedly brief reading), the underlying > > idea is that an XHTML document shall always be statically > > parseable for validity by reference to the DTD, whereas > > with the "Xtensibility through macros" idea which I was > > postulating, parsing for validity wouldn't be possible until > > after all macros had been expanded (which isn't necessarily > > a finite process). I can certainly understand the desire > > for static parsability, but on the other hand the overheads > > of creating a custom DTD will, I suspect, make the > > eXtensibility of XHTML little-used in practice. Is there > > really no case for a lightweight extensible language which > > would allow the author to use tags of his or her own > > choosing without the need for the formality of a DTD ? > > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the point of the set-up > being this way is so that > > a) markup tags are well thought out before being implemented -- you'd > want to have your tags well thought out before modifying the dtd, to > prevent having to do it again. > > b) everyone and their dog won't go out and make up random, and in a > lot of cases pointless tags, and overlapping ones with different names. > Why would you spend 5 hours creating a DTD integrating animalML with > XHTML when someone else has done it? Re-use of DTDs saves bandwidth > (assuming they're cached), effort, time, and it means that applications > don't have to be developed for 1000s of different formats -- one of the > points of XML is saving the costs of transferring data between different > incompatible formats. > > A barrier to entry is nearly always a good thing, as long as it's not > too big. By creating this barrier to entry, documents won't be littered > with meaningless, or stupid tags (eg <fUnKyT3xT>, <myC00lstuFF>). People > who are interested enough to learn how to work with are are more likely > to consider the semantics of a document. > > Again, please correct me if I'm way off here. > -- > Lach > __________________________________________ > Web: http://illuminosity.net/ > E-mail: lach@illuminosity.net > MSN: luminosity @ members.evolt.org > __________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2002 07:29:17 UTC