Arjun Ray scripsit:

>  And so, then, why must the revised DTD syntax use colonified forms at all?
>  Looks like Premature Closure to me.

We are only storyboarding.  Propose an alternative by all means; nothing
that happens here directly affects the ISO WG.  Nor do I have any special
authority merely because I kicked off the discussion.

>  But there's more, another issue raised in this thread.  Why must this
>  single "validation DTD" be encompassing rather than merely enabling (to
>  use terminology from the AFDR)?

Can you explain this?  I am not enough of an AF weenie to understand this.

>  If you're going to smorgasbord names in an ad hoc manner, why must there
>  be a unitary DTD to describe what could have been a one-off, composed as
>  the spirit moved you?  If, on the other hand, there is intent to *design*
>  a DTD, then why doesn't an annotation mechanism solve the problem of the
>  provenance of various names?

Make a proposal for such an annotation mechanism, then, by all means.

>  | Why people want to use namespaces, or why they shouldn't, is out of scope.
>  
>  I call this ostrichism.

I call it anti-dogmatism.

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@[...].com>      http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org> , an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> 

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>