[XML-SIG] Proposed XBEL DTD

[Fred L. Drake]

Sean Mc Grath writes:
 > [Greg Stein]
 > >I think you guys are making this overly complicated. I don't see any DTD
 > >out there that specifies additional entities. Instead, standard
 > >character encoding is used.
 > 
 > I agree with Greg on this point.

  Ok, the DTD has been adjusted.

 > the entities that XML builds in but is SGML compatability really
 > important for XBEL? And even if it is, will SGML users be put out?

  SGML compatibility is not important for XBEL.  Now that I've gone
back and checked to see just what "for compatibility" means, I'm
leaving out the definitions of gt, lt, etc. as well.

 > <PossibleHeresyAlert>
 > I can see the entire entity architecture of XML being depracated
 > in favour of transclusion etc. via XLink.

  Possibly.  It's not here yet.

 > I can see DTDs becoming a "compatability only" way of doing schemas.

  Possibly.  But we don't have any alternatives today.

 > 9 out of 10 XBEL aware apps will use non-validating XML parsing!
 > </PossibleHeresyAlert>

  Yes.  But does this matter?  It needs to be possible to validate
XBEL, if only so implementors can ensure their output is usable by
others.


  -Fred

--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.	     <fdrake@acm.org>
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Dr.	    Reston, VA  20191