• From: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@S...>
• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@i...>
• Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:30:12 -0700

On Aug 23, 2009, at 4:27 PM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

> Were we starting over today, I would argue strongly in favor of
> eliminating the internal DTD subset entirely and leaving the
> definition of the schema language outside the spec so that the DOCTYPE
> could point to schemas in different languages which parser vendors
> would be free to implement or not as they chose.

Agreed, and I'd go further; I'd totally eliminate <!DOCTYPE>.   
Frankly, I have no interest in an instance's opinion about which  
schemas it thinks are relevant.  The nice thing about XML is I, the  
receiver, decide how best to validate or otherwise process.  -T

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Wikipedia on XML
    • From: rjelliffe@a...
  • Re: Wikipedia on XML
    • From: Alexander Johannesen <alexander.johannesen@g...>

• References:
  • Re: Wikipedia on XML
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@i...>
  • RE: Wikipedia on XML
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • Re: Wikipedia on XML
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@i...>
  • Re: Wikipedia on XML
    • From: Michael Ludwig <milu71@g...>
  • Re: Wikipedia on XML
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@i...>