Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 03:36 PM 11/1/2002 -0800, Tim Bray wrote: >First, in background I would say that HTML is not an XML Schema *based* >language, the semantics of HTML are described in written prose and >implemented in compiled code, the schema provides error checking and >redundant expression of some of the constraints. I think that's splitting hairs -- you know as well as I do that moving forward the HTML WG has been tasked with defining XHTML using Schemas. -- You wouldn't reasonably ask that your schema also functioned as your stylesheet, or your compression engine, or any number of other things; it's just far from obvious that funny-character-naming is a thing that a schema should do. No, I wouldn't. However, with the exception of the stylesheet mentioned, I wouldn't expect a consumer of my language to have to define and develop those items either. That's what we're asking for when you say 'just create a DTD for the entities'. (When reading my arguments, please keep in mind that I'm not arguing solely in regards to the development of XHTML. We will always have a DTD and/or schema. However, not all documents will, and therein, in my opinion, lies the rub). Ann
|
