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

Re: DOCTYPE misunderstood

• From: David Pawson <DPawson@r...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 11:10:16 +0000

One line of my original message read something like
'What was the original intent' of DOCTYPE?

I love the idea of partitioning big docs to work on little ones.
This must be a good idea in any development.
Was there nothing in the thinking of the original geniuses
who started all this off? Or was it simply, this is the first
line of the spec, lets call it ....

#include works for me as a lower mortal, but it won't permit
me to compile an include file unless I draw up an empty
doc with the necessary gubbins in, then #include the
same file, simply to permit compilation.

Will the same mechanism work for XML,
i.e. 
<?XML version ....
<DOCTYPE empty ... dtd >
<empty>
#include sub-file <!-- you choose the words -->

</empty>

Sounds simple enough to do what I might want to do.

Come on gurus, what was it all about in the first place?
It wasn't that long ago that you have forgotten ... was it!

Regards, DaveP




xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: DOCTYPE misunderstood
    • From: bosak@a... (Jon Bosak)

• Prev by Date: Re: DOCTYPE misunderstood
• Next by Date: RE: XML and HTML browsers
• Previous by thread: Re: DOCTYPE misunderstood
• Next by thread: Re: DOCTYPE misunderstood
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread