Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
That's nuts and the opinion of a designer who writes code wonderfully but very few technical documents of any real complexity. A DTD in a production system with many writers attempting to remain within the constraints of a common document design found DTDs to be quite useful. Otherwise markup was crap layered into already complex content. The programmer viewpoint of markup is but one viewpoint and can't be used to post facto justify well-formedness as the basis of XML goodness. Facts are that now the usefulness of XML itself is questioned in many quarters but at the time when SGML was used as the basis of complex documentation systems that emphasized the accuracy of technical writing over database design or streaming the DTD was crucial. len From: Tim.Bray@S... [mailto:Tim.Bray@S...] The textual flaw isn't that it doesn't mention XSD or RNG, the textual flaw is that it mentions *any* schema language. A very high proportion of real-world XML processing is entirely free of anything schema-related. The vast majority of the XML value proposition is delivered by schema-free well-formed XML. Even in those apps that use a schema in their specification, the vast majority of run-time processing is schema-free. One of the costliest common mistakes of XML app/language designers is putting too much importance on schemas. The XML specification shouldn't be encouraging that mistake. My own vision of what XML.next ought to look like may be found at http://www.textuality.com/xml/xmlSW.html
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
