RE: merge mode for XML

[Gary Bisaga]

Good point, Noel. At my last job we had a partner we were required to
connect to, and it was a job getting even an example XML document out of
them, let alone a DTD or schema.

<>< gary

-----Original Message-----
From: Noel Yap [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 11:25 AM
To: Gary Bisaga; CVS-II Discussion Mailing List
Subject: RE: merge mode for XML


Not only that, but in the end it is the client who
decides the "real" semantics of the document with or
without DTDs and Schemas.

Noel
--- Gary Bisaga <address@hidden> wrote:
> Sorry, this strikes me as just a little bit extreme.
> I agree that you ought
> to write DTDs or schemas (just yesterday I had to
> make one of our developers
> do so, and our own internal XML infrastructure
> requires them). But to call
> documents without DTDs/schemas "not XML" and
> unworthy of configuration
> management is certainly not supported by the XML
> spec or common usage. For
> one thing, as I'm sure you know, the XML spec does
> not seem to deprecate
> well-formed XML documents. When I was in the W3 XML
> working group (1999)
> there was certainly a group of us (not everybody)
> who believed that
> well-formed documents had a place in the world.
>
> And if we take this tack, what about constructs not
> declarable with DTDs?
> XML Schemas will certainly improve this, but many
> people are not using them
> yet. Are DTDs with "ANY" declarations also not XML,
> since they really don't
> describe the semantics of the document? Since DTDs
> can't describe data types
> or other restrictions (such as field length), is any
> DTD'ed document "not
> XML"?
>
> DTDs and schemas are good and should be used
> wherever possible. But there
> are realities of life.
>
> <>< gary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden Behalf Of
> Greg A. Woods
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:56 AM
> To: Peter Ring
> Cc: CVS-II Discussion Mailing List
> Subject: RE: merge mode for XML
> > <rant>There's a class of simple XML documents that
> live and
> > die without getting near either a DTD or revision
> control.
> > Without a schema and accompanying documentation,
> there's no
> > way to tell the semantics of the XML document, and
> not much
> > point in version management.</rant>
>
> Amen.  I couldn't agree more!
> Those who dare call such things "XML" are sadly
> mistaken.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Info-cvs mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com