Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> From: W. Eliot Kimber <eliot@i...> > This is why I think architectures are key to > the success of XML: it lets you eat the cake of DTD-less documents and > still have it (because the architecture processing gives you all the > validation and processing you need, but only when you want it and not > when you don't). This seems a very good and important point. If the problem is how to represent occassional structures in well-formed documents, then AFs represent an external form, XML-data represents an inline form, and ISO 8879 declarations represent a header form. But, I think that a document with AFs cannot be regarded as being declaration-less, since either the declarations have to be implicitly built into the application, or be explicit in the form of a DTD outside. The horrible thing is that, of course, there is no reason why an XML-data schema could not itself be a meta-DTD! I think the issue of direct modelling (SGML templates or XML-data) versus indirect modelling (AFs) should be distinguished from the issue of the goodness of ISO 8879 declaration syntax versus XML-data non-standard syntax. AFs, as a mechanism, are syntax-neutral to a great extent. Rick Jelliffe xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
