• From: Michael Ludwig <mlu@a...>
• To: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:30:41 +0200

rjelliffe@a... schrieb:

> The syntax of DTDs is not immutable. If the HTML groups would like a
> form of DTDs with namespace-awareness, the SGML standard could be
> changed, as it was to accomodate XML. Indeed, there already is a
> specification for namespace-aware DTDs, prepared as part of ISO DSDL.
> You can read a draft at http://www.dsdl.org/dsdl-9-rev061103.pdf

The following is a frivolous syntax suggestion I made three weeks ago
following a less frivolous suggestion by Michael Kay pertaining to
namespaces without prefixes.

<!DOCTYPE stylesheet [
   <!NAMESPACE xsl  PUBLIC org.w3.xslt>
   <!NAMESPACE      SYSTEM "moin.dtd">
   <!NAMESPACE milu de.milu.miau (eins zwei param)>
   <!NAMESPACE      de.milu.wau (drei vier)>
]>
<stylesheet version="2.0">
   <xsl:param name="bla"/> [...]

Re:  XHTML 2 Working Group won't be renewed?
http://markmail.org/message/dbldtr52yawcrbtv

Is there anything principally wrong with such an approach to take
the DTD (which is part of XML anyway) and enhance it (I hear it is
possible!) so documents may look simpler and more human-readable?

Not knowing so much about the history of XML, and looking at stuff like
XInclude, W3C XML Schema, but also namespaces, I wonder why the DTD
wasn't simply used or enhanced to accomodate new-fangled functionality?
The pure-XML-syntax variants do not exactly look simpler to me, quite
the opposite.

Also, sometimes I get the vague impression that the DTD is frowned upon,
like something that's not quite respectable - but maybe that's only me.

Michael Ludwig

• References:
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...>
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: rjelliffe@a...