Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Pavel Velikhov wrote:
> Well, theoretically they are pretty serious problems. If you want to
> take a union of DTDs,
> say when integrating two XML databases, you might end up with a DTD that
> allows a lot of
> junk elements, while the original DTDs were strict enought. In the
> database setting, when
> the DTDs are used as database schemas, this leads to all sorts of
> problems.
Would you not use namespaces to distinguish the fragments originating from the two structures? I
would have thought this was a natural use for them - the simple disambiguation of names so as to
prevent clashes. I wouldn't care that I have more elements than I need because a:foo and b:foo have
identical content models, because it would all have been generated anyway. Could you provide an
example of a DTD being required to allow junk elements? Am I missing something?
--
Regards,
Marcus Carr email: mrc@a...
___________________________________________________________________
Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
- Einstein
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...)
|
