Sorry, this strikes me as just a little bit extreme. I agree that you ought to write DTDs or schemas (just yesterday I had to make one of our developers do so, and our own internal XML infrastructure requires them). But to call documents without DTDs/schemas "not XML" and unworthy of configuration management is certainly not supported by the XML spec or common usage. For one thing, as I'm sure you know, the XML spec does not seem to deprecate well-formed XML documents. When I was in the W3 XML working group (1999) there was certainly a group of us (not everybody) who believed that well-formed documents had a place in the world.
And if we take this tack, what about constructs not declarable with DTDs? XML Schemas will certainly improve this, but many people are not using them yet. Are DTDs with "ANY" declarations also not XML, since they really don't describe the semantics of the document? Since DTDs can't describe data types or other restrictions (such as field length), is any DTD'ed document "not XML"? DTDs and schemas are good and should be used wherever possible. But there are realities of life. <>< gary -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Greg A. Woods Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:56 AM To: Peter Ring Cc: CVS-II Discussion Mailing List Subject: RE: merge mode for XML > <rant>There's a class of simple XML documents that live and > die without getting near either a DTD or revision control. > Without a schema and accompanying documentation, there's no > way to tell the semantics of the XML document, and not much > point in version management.</rant> Amen. I couldn't agree more! Those who dare call such things "XML" are sadly mistaken. _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
