[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Definitions in the DTD
I admit I have gotten spoiled. I treat a DTD as I would a schemas, embedding documentation in it and generating the equivalent of the language spec from that documentation. That said: 1) I too am against duplicative maintenance. I guess it has always been my experience that nobody updates language specs and you trust what is in the DTD, period. They had to change the code, so you hope they changed the comment to match. Given that there will be a committee keeping the language spec current, that is my silly prejudice and a non-issue. 2) I think that having - an expansion of the element type name - a basic definition in the DTD *aids* reading the DTD, rather than the reverse. I, for example, had not idea what a "vrmlist" was. But we should debate that. I also feel that base definitions to not change when edge cases get added or the usage migrates slightly. I have almost never needed to update DTD "definitions" even when the content model and context changed 180 degress.. 3) However, I have no objection to removing ALL definitions from the DTD If that makes it easier, cool. 4) What is the vote on Long element names? --Debbie -- ====================================================================== Deborah Aleyne Lapeyre mailto:dalapeyre@mulberrytech.com Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com 17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9633 Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631 Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in XML and SGML ======================================================================
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]