Re: PI target names unscoped -- why?

David Brownell wrote:

> I'd still prefer to see at least a recognition of the problem that
> the draft's approach only aims for the "trivial subset" of XML (sans
> validation of DTD based declarations).  Similarly, to see a statement
> about replacing the existing declaration mechanism with TBD schema
> mechanisms to regain the DTD based error checking that appears to be
> getting discarded.

I think that's too strong.

The goal of the namespace draft is to be able to create documents that
draw from multiple vocabularies.  It allows this to be done in a way
that is compatible with XML 1.0 validation, that is, I can create a DTD
that uses element types and attributes from multiple vocabularies and I
can create documents conforming to that DTD that are valid and make use
of all the element types and attributes in the DTD.

What it doesn't do is allow me to create a DTD independently for each
vocabulary and automatically combine those DTDs so that I can validate a
document that uses a combination of vocabularies without having to
create a DTD for that specific combination.  I think the spec should
say  this and also say that we're working on a schema mechanism that
will support this.

James

Received on Monday, 17 August 1998 00:54:09 UTC