• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: Xml-Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 21:33:49 -0400

At 09:32 AM 8/3/00 +0800, Rick JELLIFFE wrote:
>This agrees with XML's premise that it is a resolved document format,
>rather than a format for documents in progress.  

Is that premise formally stated anywhere?

That seems to be the core of the 'bad idea' I've been fighting all these
years...

Otherwise, I was reasonably in agreement - DTDs aren't anywhere near dead,
for better or worse.


Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML -FinalReviewDraft)
    • From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>
  • RE: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML -FinalReviewDraft)
    • From: Aaron Skonnard <aarons@d...>

• References:
  • RE: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML - Final ReviewDraft)
    • From: Aaron Skonnard <aarons@d...>
  • Re: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML - FinalReviewDraft)
    • From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML - FinalReviewDraft)
• Next by Date: RE: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML - Final ReviewDraft)
• Previous by thread: Re: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML - FinalReviewDraft)
• Next by thread: RE: Arbitrary Infoset boundaries (was Re: Common XML -FinalReviewDraft)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread