[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XML trade off 1 - DTD vs XML Schema

• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• To: <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:08:16 +0800

From: Mark Birbeck <Mark.Birbeck@i...>

>In previous discussions on DTDs versus XML approaches to schemas I have
>argued that this ability to dynamically generate only enough of the
>schema as you need, (and the ability to cope with namespaces, which I
>haven't covered here) is my major reason for preferring XML schemas
over
>DTDs
>
>Does this confuse or clarify the point, Rick? :-)

On the other hand:

* Whether a schema is in one place or many places, you still need to
download all of it if your document has all of those elements;

* Under your system, all possible child element types are downloaded.
If your document starts at the root, you will download all the schema
anyway.

* XML Namespaces raises the possibility that elements from
different namespace can have content models that essentially
are the same, but which require separate schemas: for example,
one schema uses HTML 4 strict paragraphs and another
schema uses HTML transitional, or whatever. I think it is
important to have a commonly accepted basic vocabulary
to prevent this: HTML is a good start, but it is not managable
under any schema proposal I have seen yet.

So your system relies on each individual schema being small,
so that no fluff gets sent, and that people use well-known
content models rather than make their own.

In any case, I do not see why your system does not apply equally
to DTDs: what difference does the syntax make?  It seems to me
that some amount of the "you cannot do this with DTDs" argument
would vanish if we bothered to define a DOM for DTDs,
with XML Schemas a transformation and serialization of that
DOM. When the W3C spec-makers say "you cannot do this
with DTDs" that only would require a DOM mapping to be
specified, they are really saying "you cannot do this with W3C
specifications" not because of the intrinsic capabilities of
DTDs syntax. A little misleading.

Downloading branches of trees does not look either syntax-
dependent or semantics dependent: you don't need instance
syntax or XML Schema semantics. You just need a tree API
(e.g. DOM) and a serializer in whatever syntax.

Rick Jelliffe


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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: XML trade off 1 - DTD vs XML Schema
    • From: "Don Park" <donpark@q...>

• Prev by Date: Re: encoding problem fixed
• Next by Date: re: XMLNews-Meta and XMLNews-Story
• Previous by thread: Re: encoding problem fixed
• Next by thread: RE: XML trade off 1 - DTD vs XML Schema
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread