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

RE: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: vdv@d..., xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:57:08 -0500

From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:vdv@d...]

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
>> 
>> Not historical but applicable.  I can build with
>> XML plus DTDs and never touch an xmlns declaration. 

>And I do build a lot using XML + namespaces without touching a DTD...

Yes.  Same here.  The difference is, the XML 1.0 spec does 
not define namespaces.  It probably should but that 
argument has already been hashed to death.

>Simplicity and applicability are very subjective and application
>dependent.

But spec citation is rigorous.

> XML Base and XInclude?  Good questions.
> I put them in the same layer with namespaces.
> Where would you put them?

>>Do you mean functional or procedural layers?

>I'd tend to put XInclude in the same functional layer than external
>parsed entities and XML Base with namespaces, exactly as I put modeling
>DTD in the same bag than W3C XML Schema...

Yes.  If they are taught, that makes a good categorical class. 
I put modeling a DTD in a slightly modified category because 
one can put away the XML Schema but even XML can't put away 
the DTD because pieces of the spec family depend on it.   When 
dividing up and naming a core, it is the procedural definition 
(if I understand you) that I would use.   XML 1.0 specs 
well-formedness by syntax and validation by DTD.  Everything 
else is an add on.   So functionality aside, that is core.

What I would do today is put it in an appendix and say, "learn 
this when you need it right before SGML Declarations.  Nice 
to know they are there as the ultimate escape hatch, but the 
student needs to know if they are dinking with the declaration, 
they are in SGML, not XML, and if they are dinking with the 
DTD, they are designing a language, not processing an instance.
Eventually, one should know about all of this stuff.  Having 
predicted DTDs would stick around for a long time, so far 
so good.  But frankly, I want to get on with XML Schemas 
because they are a better modeling tool conceptually 
even though having to write examples that keep the focus 
on definition over instance is harder (Element elements and 
all that).


Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@i...
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h

• Prev by Date: Re: The Three Myths of XML
• Next by Date: RE: The Three Myths of XML
• Previous by thread: RE: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
• Next by thread: RE: XML 1.0 is simple. was: RE: almost four years ago....
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread