Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Tim Bray schrieb am 14.11.2009 um 12:49:06 (-0800): > The fact that DTDs were baked into XML 1.0 > is a historical accident. Given the role SGML seems to have played when XML was drafted, the inclusion of DTDs rather appears to be a historical inevitability. Wasn't DTD too useful to be left out? To continue your oven analogy, wouldn't XML without DTD have been like raisin cake without raisins? Or maybe you mean it would have been wise to leave out only those parts that constrain the structure of the document in terms of elements and attributes, but not other parts, such as entity declarations? Also, agreeing to enhance DTD instead of inventing XSD, allowing the user to define and assign types, might have been an alternative. I've often heard or read that people wanted an XML notation for the schema language and were dissatisfied with DTD for this very reason. However, if you try to process XSD at the XML level, let's say in order to produce an HTML page to document the notoriously unreadable XSD syntax, you eventually realize that the language is pretty complicated and you need a normalized representation of its syntax first. (Which Saxon provides in the SA and Enterprise versions.) So yes, it is XML, but no, it is not easily readable, or immediately useful. And that's why I fail to see the reason why XML syntax was desired in the first place. -- Michael Ludwig
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
