Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> -----Original Message----- > From: David Megginson [mailto:david@m...] > Sent: Saturday, August 08, 1998 5:48 AM > To: XML Dev > Subject: RE: Namespaces and XML validation > > Charles Frankston writes: > > > I do not believe the new namespace proposal with local scoping > > makes [DTD validation] any harder to do than the old PI based > > namespace proposal. > > This claim is incorrect, though the culprit is the local scoping and > defaulting rather than the declaration mechanism itself. > > XML 1.0 DTDs know only about one-part, unresolved names (i.e. "foo" or > "bar:foo", not null + "foo" or "http://www.megginson.com/" + "foo"). > Yes, David, but you're taking me somewhat too literally here (this is what I meant about being "insufficiently imaginative"). If I rephrased what I wrote as: "It is not too hard to evolve the concept of today's DTD validation to support two part locally scoped names (including the default prefix)." Would you still disagree with it? I believe this can be done -- it would obviously not be the validation as specified in XML 1.0, but a sensible evolution of the same. However, as I also said in my post, it would be essentially worthless, because it would encourage placing the prefix in the DTDs. I believe even this can be dealt with, but I'd rather spend the efforts on a new schema language, than patching DTDs. 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...)
|
