Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part
Arjun Ray scripsit: > And so, then, why must the revised DTD syntax use colonified forms at all? > Looks like Premature Closure to me. We are only storyboarding. Propose an alternative by all means; nothing that happens here directly affects the ISO WG. Nor do I have any special authority merely because I kicked off the discussion. > 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)? Can you explain this? I am not enough of an AF weenie to understand this. > 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? Make a proposal for such an annotation mechanism, then, by all means. > | Why people want to use namespaces, or why they shouldn't, is out of scope. > > I call this ostrichism. I call it anti-dogmatism. -- John Cowan <jcowan@r...> http://www.reutershealth.com I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
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