[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
One could argue pretty convincingly that there are more DTDs and code handling validation than all of the Schemas put together. That underclass may be the majority. XML processing is working in some places without namespaces. They are working in some places with them. The point is, both sides have what they need now. Why change anything to degrade one or the other? I would rather wait to see what DSDL produces than do anymore damage with hasty moves to change DTDs. I don't see a compelling reason to change the status quo at this time particularly if the DSDL group will produce a schema language that fixes what is missing in DTDs to make them work better with the WWW frameworks for XML. len -----Original Message----- From: Ronald Bourret [mailto:rpbourret@r...] "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote: > "An underclass already exists..." > > So without any substantial benefit, we rig a standard > to create a permanent underclass? > > Ummm.... that's nuts. Agreed. But since the underclass already exists, moving namespaces into the XML 1.1 spec has no effect on this. (Similarly, leaving it out does not make the underclass any less permanent.) The way to get rid of the underclass is to get DTDs and namespaces to play together. -- Ron ----------------------------------------------------------------- The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
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
|