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

Re: Great controversies of XML

• From: Len Bullard <cbullard@h...>
• To: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 21:58:03 -0600

Tim Bray wrote:
>
> >6. Internal Subsets
> 
> Shouldn't that just be 6. DTDs?

No because if DTDs were really controversial, we wouldn't 
be having such a hard time adopting the children fields of 
VRML97 to DTDs (why, we just put Children elements in the DTDs!!) 
and XHTML would have been designed around a schema instead 
of a DTD.  Come to think of it, schemas have DTDs too.  So 
far, no one seems to blink.

BTW:  as one of the inventors of XML, and great thinkers 
in markup theories, is it possible the VRML represents 
something that XML can't or shouldn't?  Asked seriously 
because that claim was made today during the GreatChildNode 
controversy.

This one is worth understanding, XMLers, as it calls into 
question whether XML actually can be thought of as a universal 
data format.

len


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/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.

• References:
  • Re: Great controversies of XML
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Great controversies of XML
• Next by Date: Re: Microsoft's responce to XML.com article
• Previous by thread: Re: Great controversies of XML
• Next by thread: Re: Great controversies of XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread