Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Prescod" <paul@p...> To: "The Deviants" <xml-dev@l...> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:14 PM Subject: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone) > > 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... I don't believe anyone can honestly claim that an XML based syntax is simpler than DTDs especially when one compares the complex mess that is W3C XML Schemas to DTDs although I'll be the first to admit that it is _more_consistent_. However, consistency and simplicity are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. -- THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #42 When I capture the hero, I will make sure I also get his dog, monkey, ferret, or whatever sickeningly cute little animal capable of untying ropes and filching keys happens to follow him around. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
|
