• To: 'John Cowan' <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: RE: dtds, schemas, xhtml, and multimedia technologies
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:31:10 -0600
• Cc: pam@e..., xml-dev@l...

Yet Another Way To Do Mostly The Same Thing. ;-)

The compact syntax is a proof that DTDs weren't 
that bad to begin with (the argument that the 
syntax was confusing for HTMLers, etc.)  And 
if one ever saw a line of BNF, DTDs are a slam 
dunk.  It may depend on one's background.

But the point is well taken that RELAX NG has more 
upside potential.  Unfortuntately, the US Government 
is taking steps to outlaw it's use for Federal 
work. :-(

len


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

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" scripsit:

> 1.  DTDs are the easiest of the schema technologies to learn.  Really. 
> Compared to other candidates, the basics come quickly.   And in 
> XML, much easier than SGML.   Faster to type too.

Can't agree with you there.  RELAX NG has equally easy basics, more upside
potential, and its compact syntax is even faster to type than DTDs -- less
use of the Shift key.

• Prev by Date: Re: dtds, schemas, xhtml, and multimedia technologies
• Next by Date: Re: dtds, schemas, xhtml, and multimedia technologies
• Previous by thread: Re: Does WTSIWYG make simplicity moot? (was Re: dtds, schemas, xhtml, and multimedia technologies)
• Next by thread: Re: dtds, schemas, xhtml, and multimedia technologies
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread