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

Re: Lotsa laughs

• From: John Cowan <cowan@l...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 00:13:38 -0400 (EDT)

Lisa Rein scripsit:

> I thought that an XML v. 1.0-compliant application needed to be
> definable using a DTD (at this point) -- even if you didn't necessarily
> write one up for it -- that it *should* be possible to do so for any XML
> v 1.0-compliant application syntax. (like SMIL etc.) Is this NOT
> correct?

That is not correct.  As long as the XML documents are well-formed,
it is perfectly fine for there to be no DTD that describes them
both.  Instead, you can use any of the schema proposals, or English
prose, or French alexandrines, or what you will....

> can, should, and must require?  according to whom?

Me.

> In that sense David Megginson is the one "company".  In BizTalk's case,
> it would be MS - if the process and the specs were indeed to be made
> public.

Well, SAX was developed by an open process, like IETF standards are.
Anyone could participate who wanted to, David wrote it all up, and
the mailing list had opportunities to object.

> 1) I thought on this very list the consensus was that, sometimes, RDF
> document syntax CAN be specified using a DTD (or is that different from
> saying that, sometimes, a DTD could be created for validating RDF
> documents?)

Exactly.  Some documents can conform both to RDF and to a DTD, but
the full amount of variation in RDF cannot be described by any DTD;
in other words, no single DTD can describe all RDF documents.

> > As long as the W3C-compliant schemas and the Microsoft schemas have
> > the same meaning, one may freely create Biztalk-compliant documents
> > without fear that they will change meanings.
> 
>  What do you mean "have the same meaning"?  Do you mean "as long as they
> are in compliance with each other?"  I think we are saying the same
> thing.  (I was saying that as long as Microsoft schemas are in
> compliance with the W3C's schema syntax.  Ultimately MS "should" defer
> to the other, not the other way around...)

No, I meant that documents *described* by Biztalk schemas can equally
well be described in another schema language, including the future
W3C schema language, provided the W3C schema language is not severely
broken, which is unlikely.

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@c...
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • DTD confusion (was Re: Lotsa laughs)
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Lotsa laughs
    • From: Lisa Rein <lisarein@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: IMPORTANT: XML Infoset WD
• Next by Date: RE: CSS Parser
• Previous by thread: RE: Lotsa laughs
• Next by thread: DTD confusion (was Re: Lotsa laughs)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread