| Steve Dahl scripsit:
|
| > From that, I inferred that prefixes are assumed to lack either
| > uniqueness or persistence (or both), or else they could have been used
| > as the namespace name to begin with. This means that it's not impossible
| > that I might have a collision between two different Namespaces being
| > associated with the same prefix. In that case, what would I need to do
| > if I wanted to mix element types from two different DTDs that had the
| > same prefix but which are intended to be bound to different Namespaces?
| Learn to relax and live without DTDs. The new namespace proposal
| makes them useless anyway, so people are now trying to develop
| various replacements for them.
Doesn't this statement make people scared?!?
First off, I still remember Tim Bray's statement at the Sydney
XML conference last year, to the effect that he was worried
that having XML without DTDs was going to cause a lot
of problems down the track.
More significantly to me, I _want_ DTDs. The whole point
to me, and to a whole lot of other people, is that SGML/XML
enforces consistency of structure. You need a DTD to
ensure that.
So, great, we can send a whole lot of unstructured tags
(as long as they are well-formed) about the place. What
does this do for us?
We end up with a whole lot of documents that are "XML",
that cannot be converted, published, validated
or anything else that requires structure, because we
don't have a DTD.
Instant legacy data!
Doesn't this worry _anyone_?
Apologies for the rant,
James
-------------------------
James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
http://www.steptwo.com.au/
jamesr@steptwo.com.au
"Beyond the Idea"
ACN 081 019 623