David is far more expert on this subject than I that I almost hesitate to
disagree with his observation about dtds. I said almost.
If he means that there is little or no use for a tool that defines and
constrains the structure of XML documents, then I need merely point to the
intense activity to develop the XML schema syntax (along with other
competing initiatives) to illustrate that many others disagree with this
point of view. It is essential in any domain where data needs to be
If what Dave means is that the SGML dtd as a particular instance of such a
devise is no longer the tool to do the job, I agree completely. As a
sometime writer of DTDs, I find the syntax arcane and limiting. Perhaps in
its next incarnation we shall the EAD structure expressed both as a "classic
SGML" DTD and as an XML schema.
Michael J. Fox
Acting Assistant Director for Library and Archives
Minnesota Historical Society
345 Kellogg Blvd West
St. Paul, MN 55102-2409
[log in to unmask]
> From: Pawson, David[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 2:13 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: SP related question
> > I have not been able to find a solution to this problem.
> > Instructions in
> > the EAD Cookbook for the use of SX (part of the SP package)
> > suggest manually
> > adding the DOCTYPE declaration post conversion. SP clearly
> > parses the SGML
> > source document but seems to output only well-formed XML. A curious
> > approach.
> As a *very* general rule, the SGML dtd is of little use
> in an XML world, so it kinda, makes sense.
> Have a look at http://www.jclark.com/sp/sx.htm
> He wrote it, and has a page dedicated to it.
> And no, there is no such option.
> Regards DaveP