John Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| 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.
I don't really agree with this analogy.
| 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.
Is it really?
| 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.
I have not problem wiht SGML DTD.
I am not trying to create the perfect xml format, I am trying to
create a format that works for lyx.
So ... I just need concrete examples on how to improve the currect
format. If you want to give that as DTD snippes: fine. If you want to
give it as xml example: fine as well.
I can create a DTD for what I already have in a reasonably short time,
but that does not really help me at all.
--
Lgb
