DTD confusion (was Re: Lotsa laughs)
david at megginson.com
Fri May 28 16:20:35 BST 1999
John Cowan writes:
> Lisa Rein scripsit:
> > I thought that an XML v. 1.0-compliant application needed to be
> > definable using a DTD (at this point) -- even if you didn't necessarily
> > write one up for it -- that it *should* be possible to do so for any XML
> > v 1.0-compliant application syntax. (like SMIL etc.) Is this NOT
> > correct?
> That is not correct. As long as the XML documents are well-formed,
> it is perfectly fine for there to be no DTD that describes them
> both. Instead, you can use any of the schema proposals, or English
> prose, or French alexandrines, or what you will....
In fact, Lisa and John are both right, but they're slightly at
1. Any XML *document* that cannot be described by a DTD is not
well-formed (I challenge anyone on the list to give me an example
to the contrary).
2. An XML *document type* may contain restraints or allow structures
that would be difficult or even impossible to model in a DTD.
The XML document type describes the characteristics that group certain
XML documents into a class -- these characteristics cannot always be
described using a DTD, and, in fact, may make the writing of a general
DTD for the whole class impossible.
All the best,
David Megginson david at megginson.com
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;
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