Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> 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, The RELAX NG abbreviated syntax. There was also an abbreviated syntax used internally by some people in the WG for XML Schemas. For design buffs, really what XML Namespaces did was move from the course-grain namespaces of SGML to fine-grained namespaces. SGML allowed an external entity to start with its own DOCTYPE declarations (if the feature SUBDOC was supported). Goldfarb's SGML Handbook even uses the term "name space" for subdocuments: they have their own document type and their own ID scoping. For XML 2, if it keeps entities, it might be a good feature to allow external entities to start with their own document type declarations and have their own ID scoping. So an entity reference could do what xml:include attempts. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
|
