• From: Tony Coates <Tony.Coates@r...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:34:39 +0000

>> 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.

     Cheers,
          Tony.
========
Anthony B. Coates
Leader of XML Architecture & Design
Chief Technology Office
Reuters Plc, London.
tony.coates@r...
========


-----------------------------------------------------------------
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.

• Prev by Date: RE: XML "include"?
• Next by Date: RE: And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!"
• Previous by thread: RE: And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!"
• Next by thread: RE: And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread