Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
No he's not the only one. "An underclass already exists..." So without any substantial benefit, we rig a standard to create a permanent underclass? Ummm.... that's nuts. len -----Original Message----- From: Ronald Bourret [mailto:rpbourret@r...] 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.
|
