A compromise?

Don Park donpark at docuverse.com
Mon Sep 20 08:57:51 BST 1999

Nick Manson wrote:
>If this compromise was accepted by the W3C, I would prefer reserving
>'xml:schema' for W3C xml schemas (whatever their final form) and using
>'xml:doctype' for DTD files.  This side-steps the issue of relying on
>magic file extensions and/or proper HTTP server behaviour.  Perhaps
>the 'LocalPart' could be tied to mime type?

That should work too but the transport layer could provide the mime/type
easily enough to differentiate between XML schema and DTD.  I also think
'xml:schema' should not be limited to 'the' XML Schema but all others out

David Brownell wrote:
>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).

Right.  I made the proposal because I believe the ability to embed XHTML
fragments within arbituary XML documents without losing the ability to
validate is the key point of contention for XHTML WG.  If the 'validatable
embedded XHTLM fragment' problem is solved with one namespace, we are that
much closer to putting this episode behind us.

>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".

Right again.  My proposal outlines just one point of the design space.  An
interesting point my proposal makes is that it is a general solution and
XHTML can use it later when and if it is adopted without having to worry
about it now.  I think the whole thing started when XHTML group started
looking too far into the future.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't
especially if your view is obstructed by unfinished work such as XML Schema.

>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 ...

Once you read the official rationale from XHTML WG, you will understand.  As
always, I am jumping the gun.  <g>


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)

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list