• From: "Don Park" <donpark@d...>
• To: "'XMLDev list'" <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 23:49:00 -0700

Rick,

I completely agree with your conclusion.  DTD [expletive deleted], XML-Schema is only
marginally better, we need something more flexible.  You might be interested
in reading an interesting paper Dave Raggett (the HTML 4.0, Tidy guy) wrote
that includes your 'parent model' idea.  The paper is at:

http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/dtdgen/Docs/

I wouldn't mind having this 'Assertion Grammars' replace the current
XML-Schema proposal.  Frankly, I am tired of tip-toeing around what W3C
thinks is the right way of doing things.

I had a great time reading it and I am sure it will definitely shake some of
you up.  It is a must read for everyone.

Best,

Don Park    -   mailto:donpark@d...
Docuverse   -   http://www.docuverse.com


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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • XSL-like DTD
    • From: Miloslav Nic <nicmila@v...>

• References:
  • schema v. validation spec, content models considered bad (was Re: XHTML & Schemas)
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: schema v. validation spec, content models considered bad (was Re: XHTML & Schemas)
• Next by Date: XSL-like DTD
• Previous by thread: schema v. validation spec, content models considered bad (was Re: XHTML & Schemas)
• Next by thread: XSL-like DTD
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread