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

Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 03:29:07 -0700
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306FEEAEC@HQ5>

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> 
> 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.

I'd bet it is. And I fail to see why you think I'm trying to get rid of
DTDs. I'm asking for a way to accord namespaces the de jure status they
already de facto have _and_ resolve the discrepancies between namespaces
and DTDs, which has bothered me since day 1.

> 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 see moving namespaces into the XML spec as a matter of formalizing the
status quo, you see it as disrupting the status quo. I think it's best
to agree to disagree on this one.

> 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.

Fair enough.

-- Ron

• References:
  • RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Are Conditional sections allowed in the internal subset of the DTD?
• Next by Date: Re: SQL DTD and related questions
• Previous by thread: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Next by thread: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread