Peter Flynn <[email protected]> writes: > On 13/08/2022 16:47, Norm Tovey-Walsh wrote: >> Jürgen Purtz <[email protected]> writes: >>> On 17.01.17 00:07, Bob Stayton wrote: > [...] >>> Will there be a DTD in 5.2? Are there plans for DTD in 6.x? >> A DTD would, in principle, be possible as well, but even less useful >> as it would be both non-normative and have no (actual) support for >> namespaces. > > As those people using DTDs (eg in publishing) are probably not worried > about normativeness, and even less worried about namespaces, they > would probably be happy with a DTD that just replicates 5.2's or 6.x's > changes to element types, content models, and attributes, where that > is possible, and if it is relevant for what is essentially > paper/pdf/epub.
Perhaps. I said “(actual)” with respect to namespaces because I expect
you’re right, picking some standard prefixes would probably satisfy most
people. But there are now a number of pervasive content model
constraints that can’t be enforced in DTDs, so validation against the
DTD wouldn’t mean you had valid documents.
>> Years ago, I thought it would be possible to generate XSD and DTD
>
> It's grown, and become much more powerful than DTDs were ever
> envisaged for, and I'm not sure many people still use XSD, do they?
There’s certainly plenty of use out there; some of the newer features in
1.1 go a long way to making it easier to use. But I still don’t think
XSD models prose documents very well. And like DTDs can’t capture some
of the constraints of DocBook.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Tovey-Walsh <[email protected]>
https://nwalsh.com/
> Life is half delicious yogurt, half crap, and your job is to keep the
> plastic spoon in the yogurt.--Scott Adams
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
