Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Marcus Carr wrote: > The change would mean that: > > DTDs are unable to play with namespaces, so they are not capable of > fully supporting the v1.1 recommendation. Ergo, DTDs should be dropped > as they have been rendered incomplete and confusing. > > I don't know whether this will be the case, but it seems logical. I also don't > know whether it would be a good or bad thing - I'm just trying to establish the > possible impact of the change. Am I the only one who thinks that we risk > creating an underclass of systems and documents? I think so. And the underclass already exists, so I don't see the risk. As I noted elsewhere, if the authors of 1.1 are bothered by the incompatibility of namespaces and DTDs, they have an alternative to throwing out DTDs -- making namespaces work with them. While this is probably too much to hope for, it would be nice. -- Ron > > -- > Regards, > > Marcus Carr email: mcarr@a... > ___________________________________________________________________ > Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au > ___________________________________________________________________ > "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." > - Einstein > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl> -- Ronald Bourret Programming, Writing, and Research XML, Databases, and Schemas http://www.rpbourret.com
|
