• To: 'Ronald Bourret' <rpbourret@r...>, xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Number of active public XML schemas
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 13:51:50 -0600

Or they read the XML specification and stopped there. 

DTDs are not hard to learn, are very effective for 
tool users, and for many purposes, all one needs. 
That people rely on the XML specification over the 
myriad competing applications of XML is not that 
surprising.  When something works, stop.

Looking at the answers the Top Five got,  
most of the DTD bashing comes from tool builders 
while most of the Schema bashing comes from tool 
users.  If one is a marketeer, which one would 
you support if you didn't read this list?

Everyone(minus some small n) bashes namespaces. 
The reason appears to be inconsistency of application 
and counter-intuitive results.

len


From: Ronald Bourret [mailto:rpbourret@r...]

It sure why people chose DTDs instead of XML Schemas, but I suspect 
it's either because they were coming from the SGML world or because they 
started work before XML Schemas were a recommendation.

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