Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part
John Cowan <jcowan@r...> wrote: | Arjun Ray scripsit: |> Inter alia, this would mean that the revised DTD syntax is not required |> to use (or identify) the specific colonifying prefixes in the instance. | | Just so. And so, then, why must the revised DTD syntax use colonified forms at all? Looks like Premature Closure to me. But there's more, another issue raised in this thread. Why must this single "validation DTD" be encompassing rather than merely enabling (to use terminology from the AFDR)? |> I don't see any reason to have it except to infect DTD syntax with |> colonification. | | The purpose of it is to allow validation of elements and attributes that | are named not with lexically apparent names but with XML Namespaces | universal names. If you're going to smorgasbord names in an ad hoc manner, why must there be a unitary DTD to describe what could have been a one-off, composed as the spirit moved you? If, on the other hand, there is intent to *design* a DTD, then why doesn't an annotation mechanism solve the problem of the provenance of various names? | Why people want to use namespaces, or why they shouldn't, is out of scope. I call this ostrichism.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format