That use(s) needs to be spelled out better. I repeat: the problem
with XML development is still the lack of requirements. If that
has to be expressed in terms of "What SGML DTDs Don't Do and
We Need", so much the better. Requirements give more people time
to plan designs and submit proposals.
> In the area of document grammar specification, XML-Data offers
> no functionality which cannot be duplicated by extensive use of
> parameter entities. But it provides that functionality in a
> transparent (in some cases MUCH more transparent) way, and in my view
> that makes it worth bothering.
Then SGML/XML can do it. I'm not sure transparency isn't
an eye of the beholder idea like complexity. Tim notes a
big shift in audience SGML literacy. I'm not sure what to
make of that remark, but if we are teaching two ways to
do the same thing before the first XML spec is even
published with regards to schemas, we're screwing up in a
big way.
I need a better definition of "transparency". That
is qualitative, it seems, and all qualitative requirements
have to be sold by compelling example because that is
often chosen on taste.
> Yes, but what about the Trans-Bulgarian Women's Quiltmakers' Club? :-)
Hey, my grandmother was a quilter!
len