DTD vs DCD vs Schema
whisper at accessone.com
Tue Jan 19 03:23:06 GMT 1999
After perusing comp.text.xml, I was reminded that xml is a proper subset of
sgml and thus whence came dtds etc. I guess it would be hard to do away
entirely with dtds and retain that relationship.
My question was originally prompted by a desire to make provision in (ok,
yet another) xml parser (in C++) i'm starting work on for future
developments wrt dcd/schema etc. Maybe I can make the dtd parser pluggable.
Seems to me that the below idea of something complementing dtds rather then
replacing them is a good one.
At 01:42 PM 1/19/99 +1100, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>From: Steven R. Newcomb <srn at techno.com>
>>The important thing is to go forward, and to avoid going backward,
>>with respect to the set of semantics that are expressible using DTDs.
>Personally, I don't think that compatability with what DTDs can model
>should be any constraint on a schema language, at least as far as
>The current content model syntax is
> * terse
> * easy to read and write
> * functional for a wide class of documents
> * standard and well-understood
> * part of XML
> * fragment-friendly (SGML's global inclusions and exclusions
>have been removed)
>I would much prefer the schema system to assume to existance of a
>DTD, and provide the missing parts. For example,
> 1) a set of data types for attributes and elements
> 2) use XSL patterns to assert that if one pattern is found,
>then another pattern must exist.
>The second in particular gets us out of the content-model approach
>and into a "partial validation" approach which is more in tune with
>ricko at gate.sinica.edu.tw
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/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev