A compromise?

[David Brownell]

Don Park wrote:
> 
> >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

I know what you're getting at, but addressing all of those is
for the future, right?  An XHTML specification for today should
just use today's standards (excluding schemas) and try to avoid
creating waves (which is a problem with using three namespaces).

There's a whole range of design spaces to play with.  My point
was more along the line of "schemas aren't here yet, let's not
try to design them into a standard that's supposed to ship in
the next month or so".

That said, I concur that those points you raise need addressing
in the Grand and Glorious Future World of Schemas.   But I can't
see how that would fit into the notion of a near-term compromise
on how to fix the XHTML bugs ...

- Dave

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)