• To: "'Robin Cover'" <robin@i...>,"'Michael Kay'" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Subject: RE: Doctypes again (was Re: Documents within documents)
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:38:36 -0000
• Cc: "'Bill Lindsey'" <bill@b...>,"'Michael Brennan'" <Michael_Brennan@A...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10202080543210.4610-100000@castor>
• Reply-to: <michael.h.kay@n...>

> Re: "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"
>
> Michael, is that a fair criticism of DTDs per se?

It's a criticism of their role within the architecture. When I parse a
document, I want it to be valid against the DTD that describes my
expectations, I don't care whether it's valid against the DTD that the
document itself nominates. But of course the DTD also contains things that
belong with the document, like entities; so yes, it's a criticism of DTDs
per se.

And I fully agree with Henry: this is one thing that XML Schema got right.

Michael Kay
Software AG
home: Michael.H.Kay@n...
work: Michael.Kay@s...

• References:
  • RE: Doctypes again (was Re: Documents withindocuments)
    • From: Robin Cover <robin@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Documents within documents
• Next by Date: Re: Number of methods.
• Previous by thread: RE: Doctypes again (was Re: Documents withindocuments)
• Next by thread: Re: Documents within documents
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread