• From: David Megginson <ak117@f...>
• To: xml-dev Mailing List <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 10:15:12 -0500

Peter Murray-Rust writes:

 > DOCTYPEs will be problematic with WF documents from more than one namespace.

Only if one particular namespace proposal is accepted.

Personally, I (and many others) believe that architectural forms
provide a much simpler, cleaner, and more powerful solution to the
namespace problem -- a document using AFs can still be validated
against a DTD, for example -- but perhaps the WG has already made up
its collective mind to the contrary.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 ak117@f...
Microstar Software Ltd.         dmeggins@m...
      http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dmeggins/

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • SAX: Prolog (question 8 of 10)
    • From: David Megginson <ak117@f...>
  • Re: SAX: Prolog (question 8 of 10)
    • From: Peter Murray-Rust <peter@u...>

• Prev by Date: SAX: problem areas (was Re: SAX: Whitespace Handling)
• Next by Date: Re: SAX: problem areas (was Re: SAX: Whitespace Handling)
• Previous by thread: Re: SAX: Prolog (question 8 of 10)
• Next by thread: Re: SAX: Prolog (question 8 of 10)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread