Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
... The problems with processing DTDs in a namespace-aware manner are greatly exagerated. One must simply give up on processing them an a lexical domain. Which is no different than the shift inherent in processing document entities in a namespace-aware manner. Otherwise one is in a situation analogous to performing the calculations for a perspective projection in a 2-d coordinate system. Would anyone complain when they realized the difficulties of that endeavour? Or would they accept that 3-d coordinate systems were better suited and act accordingly? The test documents posted in the recent thread on qualified names in attribute values demonstrated namespace-aware dtd interpretation. Granted, they were of the simpler sort, but complex dtd processing raises no issues (wrt names) which do not also appear with other encodings. 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, but to be honest > James Clark's non-XML syntax is well, pretty simple. > > > > > And then there are the times when you need to use DTDs and namespaces > > and DOM and XPath and Canonical XML, and a career move into a less > > stressful occupation, such as a Middle East peace negotiator or an > > Enron spokesperson, makes the most sense :~) > > Yeah I've dealt with that pain DTDs+Namespaces on several occasions, for > example trying to figure out XHTML Modularization ... oy. But no one seems > interested in really fixing that problem, perhaps because hardly anyone is > working with DTDs?.
|
