• To: "'michael.h.kay@n...'" <michael.h.kay@n...>, 'Bill Lindsey' <bill@b...>, 'Michael Brennan' <Michael_Brennan@A...>
• Subject: RE: Doctypes again (was Re: Documents within documents)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 08:37:49 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

That's contracting.  Initiate with your proposal, get the 
counterproposal.   Someone sends me an RFP and states the 
rules for the response.  I use their format.  If they 
are being *invasive*, using the language to force acceptance 
of terms by the format, I write exceptions.   It's noisy. 
The problem with DTDs is not that they are sender oriented, 
but that they have to be designed to enable negotiable contents 
or to negotiate out noise.

Validity goes both ways.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kay [mailto:michael.h.kay@n...]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 2:50 AM
To: 'Bill Lindsey'; 'Michael Brennan'
Cc: xml-dev@l...
Subject: RE:  Doctypes again (was Re:  Documents
within documents)


> For me, the most compelling use for (the notion
> of) document type is as a contract.  A document
> type declaration asserts that a document's
> syntax follows some set of rules to express the
> document creator's intended semantics.

Yes. I've always thought one of the weakest things about DTDs is that a
document is considered valid if it meets the sender's criteria, whether or
not it meets the recipient's.

• Prev by Date: RE: WSIO and Good is Better
• Next by Date: RE: WSIO and Good is Better
• Previous by thread: [ANN]: DecisionSoft announce release of XPath for Xerces-C
• Next by thread: RE: Doctypes again (was Re: Documents within documents)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread