[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: A compromise?
Don Park wrote: > > >I'm also curious why the HTML WG should care, since (X)HTML has > >only DTDs (currently three of them) for which there's already > >a standard association technique: > > But the current XML to DTD association mechanism has following problems: > > 1. Only one DTD per document > 2. Can not specify at element granuarity > 3. Can not replace DTD inline I know what you're getting at, but addressing all of those is for the future, right? An XHTML specification for today should just use today's standards (excluding schemas) and try to avoid creating waves (which is a problem with using three namespaces). There's a whole range of design spaces to play with. My point was more along the line of "schemas aren't here yet, let's not try to design them into a standard that's supposed to ship in the next month or so". That said, I concur that those points you raise need addressing in the Grand and Glorious Future World of Schemas. But I can't see how that would fit into the notion of a near-term compromise on how to fix the XHTML bugs ... - Dave 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...)
|
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
|