On 11/15/2013 04:13 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Michael Sokolov wrote:
>> There's OCD stuff in the XML world too, and it was there right from the
>> start, it just has a different flavor: DTD. The whole "DOCTYPE must be
>> conveyed with the document" religion created the concept of a document
>> that isn't complete without being processed by its accompanying DTD.
>> The result is a programmer's nightmare, but makes sense to a certain
>> kind of document purist.
> DTDs are necessary to process documents that depend on them e.g. because
> they use named entity references as re-usable macros, or in case of SGML
> to permit various forms of shorthand syntax like implied elements. Then
> they made processing DTDs optional and people did not bother to develop
> and deploy infrastructure needed to work with them.
Thank you! I couldn't have explained that perspective myself. From my
(programmer's) perspective, the idea that a document is not complete in
itself without some external resources to interpret it turns out to be a
practical disadvantage. I understand there are historical reasons for
the DTD dependence. I was just pointing out that is religion of a
different sort than the programmer's dogma that Pete and Simon were
alluding (type purity and rigidity of design, I think).
-Mike
