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

Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?

• To: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>
• Subject: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• From: Toni Uusitalo <toni.uusitalo@p...>
• Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 23:24:52 +0200
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <20050204204803.GA31024@t...>
• References: <6.0.0.22.0.20050204222038.02251d70@p...><20050204204803.GA31024@t...>

At 22:48 4.2.2005, you wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 10:20:42PM +0200, Toni Uusitalo wrote:
> >I guess that's inevitable progress to go and dump the DTDs.
> >There must be some research going on that measures when people are
> >ready to switch to the alternatives, I've no clue about this thing myself
> >(about usage numbers of DTDs or RelaxNG etc.).
>
>For a number of application areas (especially "document" related areas, as
>opposed to "data," for whatever that distinction is worth), there is
>currently no way to move away from DTDs, because entities cannot be defined
>except in DTDs (that's general parsed entities, not parameter entities or
>unparsed entities, which have narrower usage/appeal).
>
>At present, there's no apparent activity targeted toward providing an
>alternate entity-definition mechanism.

Yes. I've seen for example general parsed entities used in the schemas for 
regexp
pattern "macros" and thus there being DOCTYPE only for declaring
those entities.

I've nothing against DTDs and entities myself and so forth, it might be 
that they
don't appeal to most people (to the average programmer perhaps - not to the 
docheads)
because they don't use XML syntax - but as I wrote, I'd be interested in 
seeing some
usage numbers of DTD vs. schema vs. RelaxNG etc.


with respect,
Toni Uusitalo

• References:
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Toni Uusitalo <toni.uusitalo@p...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Previous by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by thread: RE: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread