[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: DOCTYPE misunderstood
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...)
|
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
|