Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Paul Prescod wrote: > At the time the argument was that it would be simpler for schema author > because they would "only need to learn one syntax." I vaguely remember that argument. I never believed it. DTDs have the advantages of simple syntax and covering a wide variety of useful cases. They work great for simple languages and the limited number of choices forces me to think hard about how to do stuff. I'm rarely disappointed in the result. I'm quite happy predicting that DTDs will have a long life. My initial interest in schema languages was (a) to avoid writing a DTD parser and related tools, (b) data typing. That still pretty much sums it up. One unexpected thing has been that "related tools" didn't quite cut it. In the end, I ended up writing code to model DTD/schema structures and explored those instead of using the DOM -- basically a data binding solution rather than a pure XML solution. In retrospect, it seems obvious, but it didn't at the time. -- Ron
|
