"Tantek Ç elik" wrote... > In practice, this never[*] happens. It's been tried *numerous* times. > DTD, > XML Schema, etc. In practice, key portions/features of really *useful* > specific formats (like HTML) *always* fall outside of the meta-format, and > *must* be specified in prose of a specification. This is specifically why > I > designed XMDP to be to absolute minimum of what is necessary to > define/recognize a vocabulary. I'm working on some extensions for > includes > (to transclude multiple XMDP profiles or portions thereof into a single > profile), but other than that, I consider XMDP "done". > > In the spirit of "don't reinvent what you can re-use", anyone seriously > desiring to work on a format-of-formats should *first* teach themselves > DTD, > and XML Schema *at a minimum*, before having the arrogance to think they > can > do better.
Why aren't they just using DTD or SML Schema for this? That was the first thing I thought of when Joe first posted. Atamido _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
