Re: SAX: Comments (question 7 of 10)

Antony Blakey (antony@n-space.com.au)
Tue, 06 Jan 1998 13:12:53 +1030

Paul Prescod wrote:
> The way this is often done is to write a DTD for DTDs, write DTDs in XML
> instance syntax and translate that syntax into XML DTD syntax for
> machine processing. The strength of XML instance syntax is that it is
> infinitely extensible (like any other XML DTD).
>
> BTW, The weakness of ALWAYS using the XML instance syntax is that it is
> infinitely extensible...like HTML.

I've been down that path (ala XML-DATA) but we have people writing DTD's
who are skilled at document analysis but not overly comfortable with
destructuring the content model of an element and converting it to some
form of XML instance. It increases the chance of error, and generates
extra QA/fix cycles. Our analysis has shown that error minimization
mechanisms are the most significant contributor to the sustainable
profitability of software (or software-like) companies at our level.

I actually would rather this approach myself, and use it whenever I
access the DTD within msxml. The skill level wouldn't be an issue if I
had time to write a good DTD authoring tool. Nothing I have seen comes
close to cutting the mustard.

+----------------------------------+
| Antony Blakey |
| N-Space Pty Ltd |
| Java - CORBA - SGML - XML |
| mailto:antony@n-space.com.au |
| http://www.n-space.com.au |
+----------------------------------+