• To: John Cowan <cowan@m...>, The Deviants <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is ameaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:40:47 -0800
• References: <E16W7JZ-0000Ds-00@m...>

John Cowan wrote:
> 
> Paul Prescod scripsit:
> 
> > One of the major arguments for moving away from DTDs was that an
> > XML-based syntax would be simpler!
> 
> Simpler for programmers, who have bbls of XML parsers to use on them.
> Not necessarily simpler for schema authors.

At the time the argument was that it would be simpler for schema author
because they would "only need to learn one syntax." I thought that that
was wrong because you've just shifted the complexity from the syntax to
the vocabulary, but that was the argument. I presumed that when Schemas
arrived there would be so many people who would learn them without ever
learning DTDs that this misunderstanding would become "historical fact".

 Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is ameaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>

• References:
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@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 isa meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Previous by thread: Re: complaintML (was misprocessing namespaces)
• Next by thread: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is ameaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread