RE: XSL FO DTD problems

Subject: RE: XSL FO DTD problems
From: "Ed Nixon" <ed.nixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 18:27:55 -0400
What is the significance of the fact that the XSL DTD cannot be expressed
in... XML (syntax, semantics, whatever...)?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Paul Grosso
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 1999 5:06 PM
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: XSL FO DTD problems
> At 13:49 1999 06 25 -0700, Rick Geimer wrote:
> >Is it my imagination, or is the DTD for XSL formatting
> objects (from the
> >following URL) an invalid XML DTD?
> >
> >
> >
> >I tried parsing it with the XML parser in IE5, and IBM's
> XML4C parser,
> >and neither one accepted. However, it seems to be a valid SGML DTD.
> You are right that it is an SGML DTD, not an XML DTD.  At this stage
> (given that we don't yet have XML schemas and SGML DTD's are more
> powerful that XML DTDs), this seemed to be the best way to express
> what we needed to express.  This DTD is *not* meant to be used in
> any specific way (e.g., in an implementation), it was merely the most
> convenient expositional tool the editors had at their
> immediate disposal.
> >Does anyone know if there is a valid XML version of this DTD, or if
> >there are plans to updated it for XML compliance?
> It appears to me there are four logical choices:
> 1.  leave it as an SGML DTD,
> 2.  convert it to an XML DTD and lose useful information,
> 3.  use something other than an XML or SGML DTD,
> 4.  just delete the whole thing from the spec.
> I don't know what the editors will decide to do.
> (My preference is option 1, but I'm only one voice.)
> paul
>  XSL-List info and archive:

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread