Great controversies of XML
cbullard at hiwaay.net
Fri Jan 14 04:03:13 GMT 2000
Tim Bray wrote:
> >6. Internal Subsets
> Shouldn't that just be 6. DTDs?
No because if DTDs were really controversial, we wouldn't
be having such a hard time adopting the children fields of
VRML97 to DTDs (why, we just put Children elements in the DTDs!!)
and XHTML would have been designed around a schema instead
of a DTD. Come to think of it, schemas have DTDs too. So
far, no one seems to blink.
BTW: as one of the inventors of XML, and great thinkers
in markup theories, is it possible the VRML represents
something that XML can't or shouldn't? Asked seriously
because that claim was made today during the GreatChildNode
This one is worth understanding, XMLers, as it calls into
question whether XML actually can be thought of as a universal
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/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.
More information about the Xml-dev