On Wednesday 30 January 2002 17:12, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Dearest Tod,
>
> On Wednesday 30 January 2002 22:58, Tod Harter wrote:
> > > You could put them in a dtd file and have DOCTYPE include that file. I
> > > wouldn't do that personally because I hate Doctype declarations and the
> > > such, as well as entities. Alternatives could include 1) using
> > > XInclude, 2) using XSLT's (or whatever else supports that) document()
> > > function to swallow them in, 3) putting part of that data in the XSLT
> > > file, which is what I do for navigation structure most of the time
> > > these days (you can then access the structure from document('')).
> >
> > I think I just love to argue with Robin, but IMHO there is nothing wrong
> > with DOCTYPE at all...
>
> All I said was "I wouldn't do that personally because I hate Doctype
> declarations and the such, as well as entities." I made no technical,
> moral, or political statement that it was wrong. I just think it SBDC [1].
> I don't like them, I wish they were kicked out of XML 2.0, but then I don't
> get to decide, and I'm happy with other people using them in the same way
> that I'm happy with other people using Java or VB.lol ;o). I just mean from a theory standpoint I understand why they decreed that schemata are part of the document. I consider a schema to be a lot like the little ".jpg" extension you tack onto a jpeg, just tells you what it is. Naturally if you want to VALIDATE you need to actually go get the DTD. Maybe they should have made all of these items just opaque URI's like namespaces are and then you could use a directive in Apache to put them where you wanted. > > > It defines the SCHEMA for the document, IE what its > > structure should be > > Albeit in a lousy way compare to modern solutions such as Schematron or > RelaxNG. Yes. I didn't actually mean to imply I thought DTD feature set was good. I completely agree, its KAKA. XML Schema is a step forward, as are a bunch of other "2nd generation" schema systems. > > > As to it being a maintenance headache. I'm not sure. If you change your > > doctype you would essentially be changing the syntax of your document. > > Yes and no. Does the syntax of your document change if you relocate > /sidebar.xml to /includes/sidebar.xml ? I don't think it does. But in this > case you need to update all the other files, which imho is a maintance > headache. > > Imho that's why having the location of included files pointed to from a > single place and not a dozen is better. Yep. > > [1] if you don't know that acronym, I'm afraid I'll have to let you guess, > or ask Mike who coined it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
