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

Re: Escher could have drawn it (Re: XML Schema and Entities)

• From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
• To: vdv@d...
• Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 13:35:30 +0100

Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...> writes:

<snip/>

Only one minor correction to a very thorough and useful analysis:

> 5) Definition of the document element.
> W3C XML Schema relies on the DOCTYPE to define the document element.
> (DOCTYPE seems also to be here to stay)

Some of your other points of DTD survival argue at least in part on
the basis of interaction with XML Schema semantics.  It's worth
pointing out that there is no such interaction in this case -- XML
Schema does not have a notion of document element at all, so in that
sense DOCTYPE is not here to stay, I don't think.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@c...
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/

• References:
  • RE: XML Schema and Entities
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Escher could have drawn it (Re: XML Schema and Entities)
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML/XSL Transformation ENCODING error
• Next by Date: Re: XML/XSL Transformation ENCODING error
• Previous by thread: Escher could have drawn it (Re: XML Schema and Entities)
• Next by thread: Re: Escher could have drawn it (Re: XML Schema and Entities)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread