• To: 'John Cowan' <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: RE: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:18:25 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

And that is very useful although in defense of the XML syntax, 
it does enable use of XSLT.  Somehow we have confused the 
ease of learning the XML syntax with the ease of reapplying the 
XML object model/information model.

The embarassing thing for me is to have beat the drum for XML syntax 
in VRML for so long only to have the XML experts come along 
with a replacement for the XML syntax almost identical to 
the original VRML97 syntax.   Somewhere, Gavin Bell is laughing 
his mustache off.

Replacing the VRML information model with the XML infoset model 
is an entirely different problem and one which language designers 
should study thorougly before embarking on XML-based unification 
of object models. ;-)

len

From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...]

Arjun Ray scripsit:

> | IMO, the non XML format is only a pain for a parser writer. 
> 
> And an XML format would be a pain for the human reader/maintainer.

Wherefore RNG has both, with interchange between either of them and
DTD syntax.  (There's a hole in James's programs right now whereby
they can't output the non-XML syntax, but that's fixable: there isn't
anything in principle preventing one from doing so.)

• Prev by Date: Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
• Next by Date: RE: User interface programming XUL?
• Previous by thread: Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
• Next by thread: Best Practice - beyond schema
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread