Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
That is the conclusion one comes to actually. It isn;t so much self-referentialism, but that the XML Schema is a vocabulary for building a vocabulary by definition. So we bootstrap up from a DTD and then we can, as we choose to, forget about them. That is quite a different issue then a directive to forget. One might (and some have) produce yetAnotherVocabularyVocabulary. Again, meaning is a choice of means. Somewhere way back there, I understood markup as a means to conserve the choice of authorities. So keep the DTD and by appeal to ISO, keep the W3C in check. Otherwise, we can choose among haikus. Len Bullard Intergraph Public Safety clbullar@i... http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Tony Coates [mailto:Tony.Coates@r...] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 11:35 AM To: xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!" >> Having just read another round of "DTDs are Dead and >> Deserve to Be" in an article prominently quoting >> a W3C official who is in charge of architectures, >> why is that there? > >1) Just what is it that you think is inappropriate about the above? >2) What 'W3C official' and what article? And, let's face it, would it be *so* bad anyway if there were just one last XML spec which used DTDs, that for Schemas itself? (Not that actually it does, but still ...) Self-referentialism (s-2-f-r-twelve-m) is overrated.
|
