Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
> 
>  It would be possible to solve this problem by extending the
>  syntax of EntityDecl
>  to allow the specification of an implicit prefix for an included
>  DTD, but that
>  would require integration of the Namespace spec into the XML
>  spec.  Personally I
>  believe that would be a Good Thing, but it doesn't appear to be
>  in the cards.
> 
Actually XML names already redefine:

doctypedecl
elementdecl
cp
Mixed
AttlistDecl
AttDef

so I don't think that it didn't happen for a lack of desire to muck with XML
1.0.

Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
http://www.openhealth.org