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

Re: life support for DTDs? was RE: misprocessing nam

• To: The Deviants <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: life support for DTDs? was RE: misprocessing namespaces)
• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 03:07:18 -0800
• References: <6D54B6A5DCF9D311971600D0B74758C101441B66@a...> <098701c1aa69$4d4d3cc0$0a2e249b@n...> <010801c1aa7d$f828ec70$4bc8a8c0@A...>

Rick Jelliffe wrote:

> Actually, it does not even need any change in DTD syntax AFAIK.
> It just needs a change in the way that validation is performed using DTDs.
> 
> The validator needs to understand that given
>     <!ATTLIST x   xmlns CDATA "123">
> or
>     <!ATTLIST x   xmlns CDATA #FIXED "123">
> etc. that an instance with
>     <y:x   xmlns:y="123">
> is correct.

Funny. MSXML implemented this a while back and Microsoft was pilloried
for not being standards compliant :) Personally, I always thought it was
a good way to resolve the namespaces / DTD dilemma.

> You would also need the rule that an unprefixed element name
> could only be declared once per DTD, which is not particularly
> objectionable.

Another possibility is that any element in a namespace would have to
declare that namespace, regardless of whether it was the default
namespace or a namespace using a prefix. Some sort of restriction along
these lines is necessary anyway, since element declarations form a
(possibly cyclical) graph and the notion of "earlier in the graph" is a
bit tenuous.

-- Ron

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: life support for DTDs? was RE: misprocessing namespaces)
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by Date: Re: Namespaces in XML and schemas
• Previous by thread: Re: life support for DTDs? was RE: misprocessing namespaces)
• Next by thread: Re: life support for DTDs? was RE: misprocessing namespaces)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread