RE: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
Total agreement. You may remember that we tried to get rid of them in the original XML WG/SIG and had to contend with the issue of DTD maintenance and the baffling books that suggest that treating them as a conceptual design tool is a good thing for very large DTDs. It was countered that perhaps very large DTDs are the real problem and that those advocating DTD design methods as a verisimilitude of object-oriented design needed to do more object-oriented design so they would understand it better as software design and not a handy metaphor. len From: Marcus Carr [mailto:mcarr@a...] The only reason I'd have for keeping them is to allow a DTD to be broken into separate files. As long as that was catered for somehow, I'd be happy to see them die. I could do without the ability to group element and attribute declarations too - like PEs, I think they make DTDs more difficult to read, particularly if you're looking for a particular element declaration. I'd rather search for the string "<!ELEMENT foo" than sift through all the places that foo gets mentioned in the DTD. Terseness in DTD redesign is of minimal importance...;-)
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