🚀 go-pugleaf

David Kelly <dpmkelly@swift.cs.tcd.ie> writes:
|
|   I have heard from several sources that it is envisaged that only a
|   limited number of DTDs will be available and that therefore
|   documents will, in general, be tagged to conform to an existing DTD.
|   The implication is that new DTDs will not be developed specifically
|   to describe individual documents or even small groups of documents.
|   In an admittedly cursory look at _The_SGML_Handbook_ I could not find
|   any discussion of this topic; I wonder if anyone has any opinions
|   or references? 

It is certainly right that a limited number of DTD's will be
_publically_ available, and that for interchange purposes, any of
these will make the task of moving a document less arduous, if not
completely automatic.  This is not the same as prohibiting or dis-
couraging DTD development according to more local or smaller needs
than, say, the Association of American Publishers or the Department
ofDefense.  Quite the contrary, I would think.  It is impossible to
design an all-encompassing document type which suit all needs.  (That
is, before we all expire.)  Local development of information struc-
tures and coding conventions is going on all the time.  There is no
central regulatory agency which mandates "a limited set" of data
structures, or software applications.  No such thing is envisaged
with DTD's, either.  Oh, some may think it would be nice if all the
world was conforming to a small set of standards, but such is not
the case.  If you needed reassurance, I hope this has been it. :-)

--
Erik Naggum             Professional Programmer            +47-2-836-863
Naggum Software             Electronic Text             <erik@naggum.no>
0118 OSLO, NORWAY       Computer Communications        <enag@ifi.uio.no>