• To: The Deviants <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:14:09 -0800
• References: <4XOKTPSQ3W1VLJ9607AZVUSBAUOYX05.3c586905@MChamp> <093701c1a9f2$71c37820$0a2e249b@n...>

Jonathan Borden wrote:
> 
>...
> 
> The single biggest problem I have with XML is the lack of compatibility
> between XML Namespaces and DTDs. But guess what? XML Namespaces appears to
> have won and DTDs have lost. Is _anyone_ really working on fixing DTDs? The
> main benefit of DTDs (IMHO) is the dirt simple syntax, 

One of the major arguments for moving away from DTDs was that an
XML-based syntax would be simpler!

I'm not saying I believed those arguments but it would be interesting to
see if your perception is widely shared...

 Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <kpako@y...>

• References:
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is ameaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Next by Date: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Previous by thread: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Next by thread: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread