Namespaces and DTDs

[len bullard]

Bill la Forge wrote:
> 
> From: len bullard <cbullard at hiwaay.net>
> >Darn.  Maybe LISP was the right language after all and forty years
> >of computer scientists just didn't "get it".
> 
> Lisp and XML have a few things in common, like being easy to
> determine if they are well formed. Frankly, I think XML will be
> better in the long run because it can be validated against various
> schema.

As much as I resisted it in the early working groups for 
various reasons, I find myself agreeing with the position 
that it is good to have formal definitions for both 
wrll-formed and validated information.  I had worked in 
that mode in the IDE/AS, IADS and GE systems, but the 
notion wasn't formally expressed.  I like ISO 8879 DTDs mainly 
because they are for me, much easier to read and use 
to parse in my head.  As I implement more with relational 
systems and use the tables to store the property sets of 
both schemata, properties of schemata as well as instances, 
I think I have more insight now into why people want 
multiple schema types even without the obvious extensions 
such as inheritance.

nodes is nodes is nodes.

len

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)