• To: 'Joe English' <jenglish@f...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: DTD and Schema Teasers
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:43:24 -0600

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

>> Two only slightly related questions:
>>
>> 1.  Why did XML keep the requirement for deterministic models?

>If I'm not mistaken, it was so that every valid XML document
>would also be a valid SGML document (given a suitable SGML
>declaration, that is).

>Since XML doesn't have start-tag omission, deterministic
>content models aren't _strictly_ necessary.  (Actually,
>they're not strictly necessary for SGML either, you'd just
>need to rephrase the way start-tag inference is specified
>in the Standard.)

And the cost of getting rid of that restriction would be 
(legacy software costs aside)?

>(P.S. *Many* thanks for starting an actual XML-related thread!)

It's out of character, I know, but occasionally I find cause to work.

len

• Prev by Date: RE: patterns and restrictions
• Next by Date: Re: Prior Art For Microsoft's XUL Patent Wanted
• Previous by thread: RE: DTD and Schema Teasers
• Next by thread: Re: patterns and restrictions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread