A compromise?

Sat Sep 18 06:42:34 BST 1999

>I'm also curious why the HTML WG should care, since (X)HTML has
>only DTDs (currently three of them) for which there's already
>a standard association technique:

But the current XML to DTD association mechanism has following problems:

1. Only one DTD per document
2. Can not specify at element granuarity
3. Can not replace DTD inline

Above restrictions makes it difficult to create composite XML documents.
Because XML namespace mechanism happens to lack above three problems, there
is a desire to equate namespace to schemas.  Why not use what is already
there?

By offering a namespace-like mechanism for schema association that solves
above three problems, we can breakout of current impass.

Here is a possible (and not necessarily the best) rendition of such a
mechanism:

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/"
  xml:schema="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/strict.dtd">
    <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/"
      xml:schema="-//W3C//DTD SVG July 1999//EN">
    </svg>
</html>

Comments?

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)