schema v. validation spec, content models considered bad (was Re: XHTML & Schemas)

[Don Park]

Rick,

I completely agree with your conclusion.  DTD sucks, XML-Schema is only
marginally better, we need something more flexible.  You might be interested
in reading an interesting paper Dave Raggett (the HTML 4.0, Tidy guy) wrote
that includes your 'parent model' idea.  The paper is at:

http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/dtdgen/Docs/

I wouldn't mind having this 'Assertion Grammars' replace the current
XML-Schema proposal.  Frankly, I am tired of tip-toeing around what W3C
thinks is the right way of doing things.

I had a great time reading it and I am sure it will definitely shake some of
you up.  It is a must read for everyone.

Best,

Don Park    -   mailto:donpark at docuverse.com
Docuverse   -   http://www.docuverse.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;
(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)