[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 21:08:20 +0000
• In-reply-to: <200206141811.OAA02903@m...>
• References: <qf9kgucts0qibovchk197c9paajc19s9rs@4...> <200206141811.OAA02903@m...>

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.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• Next by Date: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• Previous by thread: Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
• Next by thread: Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread