Between raw and cooked II: Are? DTDs are just for validation

[roddey at us.ibm.com]

>aha!! that changes things :-)
>
>I had incorrectly assumed you were making an argument that DTDs
> *ought* only be used for validation to prevent the problem we
> have identified.
>

On that subject, I think it would very much unconfuse a lot of things if
there had been separate mechanisms for defining replacement texts,
notations, etc... and the structural description of the target documents.
Perhaps maybe the schema world could fix this, but if the fix is that the
DTD gets kept just for the non-structural stuff and the scheme provides the
structural stuff, I'm not so sure that that would be all that great (it
certainly wouldn't make XML any easier for the user or developer, IMHO.)



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)