Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Arjun Ray scripsit: > And so, then, why must the revised DTD syntax use colonified forms at all? > Looks like Premature Closure to me. We are only storyboarding. Propose an alternative by all means; nothing that happens here directly affects the ISO WG. Nor do I have any special authority merely because I kicked off the discussion. > But there's more, another issue raised in this thread. Why must this > single "validation DTD" be encompassing rather than merely enabling (to > use terminology from the AFDR)? Can you explain this? I am not enough of an AF weenie to understand this. > If you're going to smorgasbord names in an ad hoc manner, why must there > be a unitary DTD to describe what could have been a one-off, composed as > the spirit moved you? If, on the other hand, there is intent to *design* > a DTD, then why doesn't an annotation mechanism solve the problem of the > provenance of various names? Make a proposal for such an annotation mechanism, then, by all means. > | Why people want to use namespaces, or why they shouldn't, is out of scope. > > I call this ostrichism. I call it anti-dogmatism. -- John Cowan <jcowan@r...> http://www.reutershealth.com I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
|
