Hello --

On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Sean Russell wrote:

> Oliver M. Bolzer wrote:
> > Yea, DTDs are cool. I totally agree. Learned my HTML reading DTDs in the
> > old days. I'll never look at an XML-Schema (XSD) until I really do have no
> > other choice again :-)    (Being able to specify stuff context-sensitively
> > is niche feature but XSDs still suck (long story won't be told))
>
> A niche feature, eh?  How about attribute value types?  And real XML-based
> syntax, rather than a hacked variation of SGML?

I thought that's what real XML syntax was :-)

<duck/>

> DTDs require special processing, and make XML processors inordinately
> complex.  When dealing with SGML, the additional code to process DTDs is
> dwarfed by the load of supporting all of the SGML features... but requiring
> XML processors to support them was, well, dumb.

Special processing, yes, but not inordinately complex, I think, in
relation to the payoff (validation).  (Easy for me to say, since I've
written about 10 lines of a processor.)  Also, at least in the case of
SGML, it's not really "additional", since every SGML document conforms
to a DTD (i.e., that's what the whole thing is about).

Whoops, somewhat off-topic.  Ummmm....  Ruby is really cool.  There.
:-)


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav