Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
But they cheated(was RE: misprocessing namespaces) (was Re: There i s a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)Len, "Problem is, DTDs don't seem to be dieing as ordained. Now we have a moreorless permanent incompatibility by design. Brilliant. " One might have made the argument that DTDs are dying as ordained by the W3C, but this is only part of the story. 1) MSXML can't properly validate the latest XHTML DTD, so it appears that Microsoft is not seriously supporting DTDs 2) James Clark tells the XML community to move on, at this point he is certainly not the voice of the W3C The plain fact is that the major commercial entities have already moved on and the new work in XML is focussed directly at the various schema languages. If namespaces could be made to work _properly_ with DTDs, and I am sure this is possible with a few clever hacks, then I think DTDs are actually quite easy to work with. But as I've said, this seems to be a done deal, and at present I would rather focus on making XML better for the future rathering than arguing old battles long gone. This applies to both namespace and DTDs. Perhaps if anyone is really interested in keeping DTDs alive, they might publish such a proposal to fix the problem, accompanied by some software that implements the proposal. Then we would be able to see if it flies. Otherwise, as we say: "Call the code." Jonathan
|
