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

Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9

• To: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@C...>
• Subject: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:39:43 -0700
• Cc: XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@l...>
• References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020611144900.02cd0058@p...>

"G. Ken Holman" wrote:
> 
>...
> 
> Yes, but early thoughts are that we don't want to "break" DTDs, so we will
> look at trying to come up with conventions of use of existing DTD syntax
> before introducing new syntax and/or declarations.

There have been at least two attempts to add datatypes to DTDs without
breaking the syntax. Lextype and DT4DTD. You're baking a cake. Please do
not be afraid to break some eggs!

 Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
    • From: Marcus Carr <mcarr@a...>

• References:
  • Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
    • From: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@C...>

• Prev by Date: Re: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Next by Date: RE: W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box
• Previous by thread: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• Next by thread: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread