Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>
> At 12:27 10/08/98 -0700, Murray Altheim wrote:
> [...]
> >
> >Peter,
> >
>
> >over the working group archives to see that compatibility is not a given.
>
> These are not generally available...
would someone be so kind as to edit the appropriate contributions to the
working group archive to make them available for public consumption.
>
> >In all but trivial DTDs namespaces have been shown to be incompatible with
> >XML 1.0 validation (or at very least more manual effort than would be
> >worth the trouble*). The solution for validating moderately complex
> >structures using qualified names without wholescale rewriting of existing
> >DTDs has not yet been found. It is a given that any such alternative
please give examples of the cases which cannot be validated.
> >validation solution would be inherently incompatible with existing the
> >validation methodology (ie., the SGML-compatible declaration syntax in
> >XML 1.0).
this may be true (wrt. the methodology, not the syntax), but, in the long run,
that does not matter.