- From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 04:22:05 +0900
- To: www-tag@w3.org
In response to a suggestion[*] from Dan Appelquist on twitter, I'd like to ask that the TAG consider taking a position against further publication of DTDs in W3C TR space by any W3C working group. [*] https://twitter.com/torgo/status/422746987650220032 Specifically, I'd like for there to be a document from the TAG somewhere stating that: - Working groups should not include DTDs or portions from DTDs in any form, even non-normatively, within any specifications they wish to publish as Working Drafts or Notes in TR space. - Working groups should also not publish DTDs separate from specifications in TR space, including not for the purpose of referencing the DTDs within a specification nor for any other purpose; so for example, no further DTDs should be made available in TR space similar to the way in which http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd is made available there. - No current W3C draft specifications that contain or reference DTDs should be allowed to transition to Candidate Recommendation, Proposed Recommendation, or Recommendation. The rationale for stopping publication of DTDs in TR space is that: - DTDs published in TR space risk being considered by the community to be complete normative expressions of the document-conformance constraints for a specification, even if they are labeled as non-normative. - DTDs as a formalism lack the power to express many document-conformance constraints that can be stated in the prose of a specification. The community should always first be reading the prose of the specifications themselves in order to understand the conformance constraints the specification states -- rather than relying on any accompanying DTD. - To the degree that it's useful for the W3C to publish schema formalisms at all, DTDs as a schema formalism have been obsoleted for many years now by Relax NG and W3C XML Schema (which even themselves are unable to express many conformance constraints that can be stated in the prose of a specification, but at least come closer than DTDs). -- Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Monday, 13 January 2014 19:22:13 UTC