Seriously though, we don't need dedicated hosting for DTDs. We need XML language spec writers, authors and user agent vendors to realise that DTDs are useless. Web browser vendors realised this a long time ago. No browser ever read HTML's SGML DTDs, and they do not use validating parsers for XHTML either (although, they use a hack to parse a subset of the DTD to handle XHTML and MathML entity references).
DTDs pollute the document with schema-specific syntax. Since
the document itself declares the rules, the question on answered by
DTD validation is not the question that should be asked. DTD
validation aswers the question "Does this document conform to the
rules it declares itself?" The interesting question is "Does
this document conform to these rules?" when the person who asks
the question chooses the rules the question is about.
DTDs mix a validation mechanism, an inclusion mechanism and
an infoset augmentation mechanism. The inclusion mechanism is mainly
used for cheracter entities, which solve (but only it if the DTD is
processed and processing it is not required!) an input problem by
burdening the recipient instead of keeping input matters between the
editing software and the document author.
DTDs aren't particularly expressive.
DTDs don't support Namespaces in XML.
Plus, if a UA needs to request the DTD every time it parses the file, that adds significant overhead by the time it fetches the DTD, parses it and checks the document for validity. It's just not worth it. The Netscape RSS DTD issue was a mistake, and it's time to learn from that. There are much better alternatives available for validating XML than DTDs, such as RelaxNG or Schematron.
It is standards compliant. There is absolutely nothing wrong with setting the rows and cols attributes in the HTML and then overriding the height and width using CSS. Doing so provides a useful fallback size for when CSS is disabled, though HTML5 does make the attributes optional.
In Australia, "Unlimited" plans typically get shaped after 10GB, 5GB plans are often called light. Just in the last 28 days, I've already done nearly 7GB all for legitimate and legal purposes, I haven't even been using bit torrent or P2P, and only downloads are counted, not uploads. However, this has been a particularly light monthly usage for me, as I'll often get up near 40GB easily.
I just thought religions were self-reinforcing delusions; I never thought it could be caused by a biological anomaly. But, if it's true, I must have been born without the religion-gene, cause for as long as I can remember, I never believed in any of that religious nonsense, even before I knew anything about the scientific theories of evolution, the big bang, etc.
Actually, it take a whole lot more effort than that. There's a whole heap of issues regarding MIME types, character encodings, style sheets, scripts, well formedness, entity references and much, much more. See XHTML is not for Beginners.
Slashdot Mirror
Quick, someone register http://all.your.dtds.are.belong.to.us/ :-)
Seriously though, we don't need dedicated hosting for DTDs. We need XML language spec writers, authors and user agent vendors to realise that DTDs are useless. Web browser vendors realised this a long time ago. No browser ever read HTML's SGML DTDs, and they do not use validating parsers for XHTML either (although, they use a hack to parse a subset of the DTD to handle XHTML and MathML entity references).
DTDs are bad for several reasons:
Plus, if a UA needs to request the DTD every time it parses the file, that adds significant overhead by the time it fetches the DTD, parses it and checks the document for validity. It's just not worth it. The Netscape RSS DTD issue was a mistake, and it's time to learn from that. There are much better alternatives available for validating XML than DTDs, such as RelaxNG or Schematron.Yep! As long as Bush remains president of the US and Shrub remains prime minister of Australia, we're pretty much screwed.
How about an image?A AAEAAAABABgAAAAAABQAAAASCwAAEgsAAAAAAAAAAAAAEfkJdJ 0C2FvjxVZBiFZjAADAAAA%3D

or a string of UTF-16 encoded characters?% 9d%74%e3%5b%d8%41%56%c5%63%56%88%c0
data:text/plain;charset=UTF-16,%FF%FE%09%f9%11%02
It is standards compliant. There is absolutely nothing wrong with setting the rows and cols attributes in the HTML and then overriding the height and width using CSS. Doing so provides a useful fallback size for when CSS is disabled, though HTML5 does make the attributes optional.
In Australia, "Unlimited" plans typically get shaped after 10GB, 5GB plans are often called light. Just in the last 28 days, I've already done nearly 7GB all for legitimate and legal purposes, I haven't even been using bit torrent or P2P, and only downloads are counted, not uploads. However, this has been a particularly light monthly usage for me, as I'll often get up near 40GB easily.
I just thought religions were self-reinforcing delusions; I never thought it could be caused by a biological anomaly. But, if it's true, I must have been born without the religion-gene, cause for as long as I can remember, I never believed in any of that religious nonsense, even before I knew anything about the scientific theories of evolution, the big bang, etc.
Actually, it take a whole lot more effort than that. There's a whole heap of issues regarding MIME types, character encodings, style sheets, scripts, well formedness, entity references and much, much more. See XHTML is not for Beginners.