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

Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not neededas part

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not neededas part of DTD syntax?
• From: Dennis Sosnoski <dms@s...>
• Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 19:13:21 -0700
• References: <200206141022.GAA25900@m...> <010701c21380$1a771a70$4bc8a8c0@A...> <200206141022.GAA25900@m...> <5.1.0.14.0.20020615200648.00ba2270@p...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020529

I'd love to have DTD support for these features. I'll use Schema in 
situations where I have no other practical choice, and RELAX-NG is at 
least an interesting alternative, but I absolutely prefer using DTDs.

I know this has been debated ad nauseam, but my preference is to have 
the schema only describe the structure of the document and leave the 
data validation to the application. This is because (1) I'm unwilling to 
trust schema validation by the parser in my code - if somebody changes 
the schema I don't want it creating a buffer overrun (well, an 
ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException anyway - you can't actually *do* buffer 
overruns in Java...) in the application; and (2) there are generally 
constraints on the data which cannot be expressed in the schema language 
(interdependencies between values, or dependencies on external values).

  - Dennis

G. Ken Holman wrote:

> I'd be interested to hear from others if they think DTD syntax is even 
> needed for the features we've quoted here ... or will people just rely 
> on Part 2 (RELAX-NG) for their grammar needs?
>
> Should we even bother with a Part 9?  Why?  We aren't doing this for 
> an academic exercise ... we want to reach the constituency of document 
> modelers out there, many of whom are still using DTD syntax.
>
> ............ Ken 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
    • From: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@C...>

• Prev by Date: Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
• Next by Date: XUL Fool?
• 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