One could argue pretty convincingly that there are 
more DTDs and code handling validation than all of 
the Schemas put together.  That underclass may be 
the majority.

XML processing is working in some places without 
namespaces.  They are working in some places with 
them.  The point is, both sides have what they 
need now.  Why change anything to degrade one 
or the other?

I would rather wait to see what DSDL produces 
than do anymore damage with hasty moves to change  
DTDs.  I don't see a compelling reason to change the 
status quo at this time particularly if the DSDL 
group will produce a schema language that fixes 
what is missing in DTDs to make them work better 
with the WWW frameworks for XML. 

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald Bourret [mailto:rpbourret@r...]

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> "An underclass already exists..."
> 
> So without any substantial benefit, we rig a standard
> to create a permanent underclass?
> 
> Ummm.... that's nuts.

Agreed. But since the underclass already exists, moving namespaces into
the XML 1.1 spec has no effect on this. (Similarly, leaving it out does
not make the underclass any less permanent.) The way to get rid of the
underclass is to get DTDs and namespaces to play together.

-- Ron

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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>