Subject: Re: XML DTD update proposition

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:33:56 -0500

Philippe:
You aren't really serious. Certainly, there is quite a difference between 
leveraging standard data types in iCalendar within the XML DTD. A PCDATA 
content type for these is appropriate. But a PCDATA content type for the 
whole of the iCalendar object is not an equal argument.
You seem to be approaching this as a XML application design problem, 
rather than just a remapping of iCalendar semantics into an alternate 
syntax. The originator and recipient of these objects are presumed to be 
iCalendar conformant subsystems.
We are also not assuming the XML iCalendar object would be parsed by a 
validating parser. This would be a huge implementation overhead for client 
environments. The only requirement that seems reasonable is that the XML 
iCalendar object be well-formed, but not even a valid XML entity. That is, 
there may not be a XML declaration or prolog/epilog in the entity.
-- Frank

---

From: Paul Hill <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 10:11:14 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:
> We are also not assuming the XML iCalendar object would be parsed by a validating parser.

I believe you can always feed an XML document that is highly
specified by some (external) DTD into a non-validating parser regardless of how
specified it is.

-Paul
-- 
Myriad Genetics: http://www.myriad.com/
Java FAQ: http://www.afu.com/javafaq.html (Section 9, Computer Dating)