Name for XML DTDs

Paul Prescod papresco at
Mon May 25 14:41:18 BST 1998

I don't think either that sounding like STD or XTC is worth worrying

In rethinking, though. I'm not sure that what we will eventually
accomplish will be strictly a "type definition." For instance one of these
schemata might only define attributes. A new attribute is not a "type" --
it is just an attribute. There are many things that are misnamed in the
world, and this only impedes their progress slightly, but it is still
worth thinking about.

I don't think that XSchema is too inclusive. I understand that we are not
making the schema language to end all schema languages, but SAX was not
the simple API for XML to end all simple APIs for XML, and XLink is not
the linking language for XML to end all linking languages for XML.

How about the "XML Structure Definition" specification that describes how
to make "Structure Definition Documents."

 Paul Prescod  -

"You have the wrong number."
"Eh? Isn't that the Odeon?"
"No, this is the Great Theater of Life. Admission is free, but the 
taxation is mortal. You come when you can, and leave when you must. The 
show is continuous. Good-night." -- Robertson Davies, "The Cunning Man"

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as:
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list