> As long as we have DTD syntax I can ignore or use any schema
> efforts as I please, because my ability to use normal DTDs is
> assured. The cost of writing schema-to-DTD-syntax transforms will
> always be lower than the cost of participating in wide-scope schema
> definition efforts.
>
> But maybe I'm just a crank.
Of course Eliot's a crank, but I agree with him entirely. In fact,
I'd like to mention an even greater -- the cost of fiddling with the
XML spec when there is now such an enormous amount of work going on
based on the XML 1.0 recommendation.
Like Eliot, I believe that DTDs should remain the basic interchange
format for XML document schemas. If someone wants to give me a schema
in XML-Data, or in MMLML (Megginson's Meta-Language Markup Language),
or whatever, I have no objection, as long as I get the standard DTD as
well.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson ak117@freenet.carleton.ca
Microstar Software Ltd. dmeggins@microstar.com
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dmeggins/
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)