• To: Michael Kay <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Subject: Re: Number of active public XML schemas
• From: 'Liam Quin' <liam@w...>
• Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:19:57 -0500
• Cc: 'xml-dev' <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <20041101202600.LUOT13844.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@Turtle>
• References: <20041101194609.GD24287@w...> <20041101202600.LUOT13844.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@Turtle>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i

On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 08:26:44PM -0000, Michael Kay wrote:
> > Or because they [DTDs] are easier to understand, 
> 
> I have yet to see a DTD of more than trivial size that is not totally
> impenetrable. And fragile too, if you are rash enough to make a one line
> change that breaks an entire edifice of parameter entities and conditional
> sections.

I should have made clear I was trying to give people's reasons that I've
heard, not necessarily my own opinions!

I do think the DTD *spec* is easier to understand, overall, than the
Schema spec, although there are certainly some obscure subtleties.

Individual Schemas and DTDs are another matter :-)

Liam


-- 
Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/

• References:
  • Re: Number of active public XML schemas
    • From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>
  • RE: Number of active public XML schemas
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Number of active public XML schemas
• Next by Date: RE: Imprimaturs - W3C and ISO
• Previous by thread: RE: Number of active public XML schemas
• Next by thread: Re: Number of active public XML schemas
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread