Namespaces and DTDs

james anderson James.Anderson at
Wed Mar 10 10:34:43 GMT 1999

That "REC-xml-names-19990114" does not provide any means to establish
prefix<->uri bindings for a DTD has long been a point of contention. A cursory
search of the archives will bear this out. The decision to eliminate the
combined prefix/uri/dtd binding (the original pi form) was, however, correct,
as the pi form, at least as proposed in "WD-xml-names-19980327", would not
have been sufficient to handle such things as a dtd which needs multiple
prefix bindings or the situation where a given prefix<->uri binding is to
apply to multiple schema sources.

While it is true that some mechanism is necessary, a form - as discussed below
- which effected a singular binding would also not have solved the problem.
"Everyone" would seem to be waiting for "schemas"....

Marc.McDonald at wrote:
> A simple extension to namespaces could have fixed this problem:
> 1.      Allow a DTD to be optionally specified along with the namespace
> prefix and URI
> 2.      When an element is prefixed, parse it using the DTD associated with
> the namespace and the given prefix as the default.
> 3.      If no DTD is associated with the prefix or not validating, do what
> is done now (ensure element is well-formed).

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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