Those of us who continue to use SGML are kind of forced into opt 2, are we not? I'd prefer to avoid further divergence between the two versions (SGML/XML).
Mark At 03:34 PM 11/30/01 -0500, Norman Walsh wrote: >/ Eduardo Gutentag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: >| Option 2 makes much more sense to me. > >Why? > >My thoughts are: > >1. We're moving towards more modular, reusable documentation. Sooner or later, > probably sooner, someone's going to want to include a fragment that > uses one > table model along with a fragment that uses the other. And that won't be > possible. > >2. This is exactly the problem namespaces are supposed to solve, isn't it? :-) > >3. Won't tool vendors have to support mixed namespaces "real soon now" > anyway, for things like XLink, SVG, MathML, etc. So tools will > actually be able to handle this? > >| Norman Walsh wrote: >| > >| > See >http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=472229&group_id=21935&atid=384107 >[...] >| > There appear to be two solutions: >| > >| > 1. Use namespaces. >| > >| > 2. Force the user to make a top-level choice by having, effectively, >| > two DTDs. This would mean a document could contain *either* HTML tables >| > *or* CALS tables, but not both. > > Be seeing you, > norm > >-- >Norman Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | He who fails to become a giant >http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | need not remain content with being >Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | a dwarf.--Ernest Bramah Mark B. Wroth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
