On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 03:01:18PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > > As to the DTD, I don't want to create that right away. Currently we > have a, as you say, a proof-of-concecpt. I'd like to fiddle with this > a bit, try to make the XML look the way we want it. Best practice and > so forth. > > When we have that, then I'd like us to put the DTD down.
Let me try rephrasing what I said in my original message. Think of a specific XML format as a C++ class. The DTD for an XML format (or, if you prefer, the XSchema for an XML format) is like the header file for a C++ class. A file with "an XML look" is the *implementation* of an instance of a C++ class. Would you write the implementation of a single instance of a C++ class first, then create the C++ header from the assembly code for that instance? "Playing around with the XML look" is far, far, FAR easier to do from within a DTD. If you're uncomfortable with SGML DTD, then let's use XSchema. XSchema, for those that don't know, is an XML document that defines DTD's for other XML documents. Since it's all in XML, it's not as "uncomfortable" for folks who don't know how to read the SGML DTD language. -- John Weiss
