Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Goodbye to textual applications?
 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean McGrath" <sean.mcgrath@p...> > [Marcus Carr] > Perhaps I'm atypical, but most of my XML data is based on (if not > >validated against) a DTD. If my DTD doesn't mesh with my data, it probably > >means that my data is wrong. Reports about the death of DTDs continue to > >be greatly exaggerated... > > Amen. > > I use DTDs for their most excellent powerful, intuitive, consise, > extended regular expression notation. powerful? Comparing to metamata's JavaCC ( the next step after YACC ) DTDs are'nt powerful, because DTDs power is comparable to YACC and JavaCC is 'better', than YACC. intuitive? Well ... this is subjective, but I don't find them to be intuitive ... You mean emulating inherinatce with macroprocessing is intuitive? Hmm... regular extressions? Well, I'd say that with regular expressions we have regexprs version 1 ( grep or 'see if there is a match') and regexprs version 2 ( perl's $1, which is 'if there is a match - take this and that part of matching string' ) DTDs are at the level of version 1, so I think that maybe they're kinda ... obsolete ... ( And JavaCC kinda 'got it right' ... ) > I eschew all the other stuff heaped in there from the SGML days > where possible. Such as? I'd really love to know about the best alternatives to DTDs. Many thanks. > It is truly exasperating to see *ML.org sites being created at a rate of > knots and their drivers getting all "deeply committed" to W3C XML > Schema without thinking through the implications. > Especially for document-oriented XML applications. Yes, Schema is a monster. But that does not mean that DTDs are really good. > I said it at the Orlando conference and I'll say it again here. If w3C schema > is so complex that you *need* tools to visualize it then its XML 1.0 syntactic > base will not save us from the clutches of proprietary tool vendors. No doubt. Schema is a monster. Perhaps, some tweaking of DTDs may be better than building on XSD, but DTDs as-is? Well ... > DTDs are not perfect, there are multiple alternatives, some better than > others for document-oriented XML applications. Well, I don't understand your point then. If there is something better than DTDs, why are you defending the DTDs? > I used to think that XML would finally break down what I always thought of as > an accidental divide between "data" and "documents". But there *is* a divide. For example, for 'data' the order of properties is actually not really important and for documents there is a ( I think sometimes misleading ) view that the order is important. And also that mixed content stuff ... > It does appear to me now that the chasm is too wide for XML to cross. Our kids > will revisit this one mid-century. 30+ years ago Mr. Brooks told us that the data structures are the most important thing in software development. Since then there was not too much progress in this area, I think. I agree that it would take a very long time to get some better structures rather than keep using arrays, variables and hashtables. At least those assembly rudiments, called 'pointers', are now optional. Not bad for 30 years. Rgds.Paul. PS. And of course, we all know that at least one of XML standards (XSL FO) can not be expressed in DTDs, so ... There is some problem, either with XSL FO ( I doubt that, because XSL FO is driven by people with many years of printing experience, so it should be that they know what they 'really need' for printing ), or with DTDs ( more likely ). 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
