Thanks for your remarks. I do agree that future W3C standardization efforts should be focused on schemas. DTD is an old technology, and trying to put efforts now, to incorporate DTD related features in DOM will not bear much fruits very soon.
In Java XML parser market, Xerces-J is clearly the market leader, and I (and believe many other people) would be happy to use the extension class I cited, in my applications. I appreciate the efforts put by the Xerces team to build such useful extensions. On Jan 15, 2008 8:35 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >I believe, this is a critical shortcoming in DOM (i.e., not able to > >create/modify internal DTD subset in standard DOM). Is there some > >place, where I can ask for this functionality in DOM? > > DOM Level 3 considered adding DTD/schema support, but in the end the > validation module was all that survived as consensus on what might actually > be general enough to be worth standardizing. See > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-DOM-Level-3-Val-20040127/ > > I don't think it's likely that the W3C will invest further effort, > especially since you're specifically asking for DTDs and the W3C wants to > see folks move to Schemas (for multiple reasons, most notably namespaces). > > The only approach that I think would have even a slight chance of being > accepted would be for you to get an independent group together, rigorously > hammer out a proposed set of extensions to the DOM (keeping in mind all the > issues of abstraction and minimality and interoperability that have > characterized the DOM so far), submit it to the W3C as a Note, and hope that > if you've done an absolutely brilliant job someone says "Yeah, that looks > like it's worth standardizing." That's more likely to happen if your > solution is informed by the past discussion of this problem and if it > somehow manages to address schemas within the same abstractions (which, as > noted above, is a very difficult problem to address cleanly since the two > are really not fully commensurate). > > In other words: It's likely to take a year's committee work and a minor > miracle. If it isn't worth that much investment and risk to you, the simple > answer is "no, you're going to have to go with a non-standardized API." > > Sorry to bear bad news -- but I was there for part of the discussion, and > I've got some idea of just how hard it's going to be to produce something > everyone will accept. > > ______________________________________ > "... Three things see no end: A loop with exit code done wrong, > A semaphore untested, And the change that comes along. ..." > -- "Threes" Rev 1.1 - Duane Elms / Leslie Fish > (http://www.ovff.org/pegasus/songs/threes-rev-11.html) -- Regards, Mukul Gandhi --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
