Re: Why a DTD and not a XML-Schema ?

On Friday, December 19, 2003, at 03:50  AM, Pac wrote:

> Le 18/12/03 =E0 23:50, Low Zhen Lin a =E9crit:
> Low>
> Low>
>
> Low> I know of the advantages. However - the fact is that there is a=20=

> lot
> Low> more to validate than just types. I'd rather leave typed=20
> validation to
> Low> the specialised validating tool, and well-formedness to the=20
> generic
> Low> validator.
> Yeah but how will you validate typed data you are not using a Schema ?

I don't need to write it down - I am not writing a generic validator -=20=

I will be writing, if at all, a XBuild-specific validator.


> DTDs have limitations see :

I know. But I won't rewrite it to an XML schema, because I don't need=20
to, for now - you can if you want to.

> Low> Feel free to write an XML schema on it... I have a feeling that=20=

> XML
> Low> schemas are less supported by the generic validators. If you can=20=

> write
> Low> a XML schema that can functionally replace all the DTDs - and fit=20=

> into
> Low> a <!DOCTYPE> declaration, we might take that instead.
>
> What do you mean with "fit into <!DOCTYPE>"

Near the top of every XML document is a <!DOCTYPE ... PUBLIC "..."=20
"http://..."> statement. My understanding is that only a DTD can fit in=20=

there.

Also... My DTDs use a few techniques that involve scripts, substitution=20=

and macros. You must be able to port the scripts as well, and=20
substitute the functionality of the macros.

> Well. COuld please tell a bit more because I can not give arguments=20
> against your
> point if do not tell me which areas you are talking about
> :=3D)

I can't remember... I studied this about 6 or 7 months ago, maybe more.=20=

I know that DTDs are more compact and more suitable for handwriting, as=20=

opposed to any XML, which can be bulky.

There are several modifications I will be making to the DTD set - they=20=

should not be incompatible, but just a warning.