RE: Name for XML DTDs

Peter Murray-Rust (peter@ursus.demon.co.uk)
Mon, 25 May 1998 15:01:45

At 12:52 25/05/98 UT, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
[...]
>We'd probably better wrap up the name contributions soon and start
deciding on
>which of these names is the best. Then it'll be easier to identify what
we're
>talking about, and the real arguments can begin.
>
Agreed. You choose what we start with. If we all come to love it, fine. If
we find that we redefine what it is we are creating - we'll need to rename
it. It is often said that the title is the last part of the book to be
written.

I would suggest that you try to gather some *general* questions to start
with, especially the limits we need to set ourselves. Since I think it's
slightly less clear what we are trying to do here than in SAX it could be a
good idea to iterate on the questions. I'd also suggest we set goals a la
X*L processes, etc.

1. XSD (or whatever it is called) should be easy to use
2. XSD should be compatible with (?and algorithmically transformable into?)
the equivalent DTD...
and so on.

P.

Peter Murray-Rust, Director Virtual School of Molecular Sciences, domestic
net connection
VSMS http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/vsms, Virtual Hyperglossary
http://www.venus.co.uk/vhg