"document type" is certainly the most accurate if you take it to mean
"abstract document type" (that is, a set of types distinct from any
implementation expression of them) but I think that most people don't
make that distinction, especially people like many of us with deep SGML
brain damage, where there was no obvious need to distinquish between the
abstract document type and its syntactic expression.
I don't understand. Does "document type" imply a particular syntactic
expression? Its use in the XHTML specification certainly implies that it can
be used for either schemas or DTDs, in exactly the manner we want.
That's one reason I prefer "vocabulary"--it's completely (and in the
namespace spec, explicitly) divorced from any particular syntactic or
formal definition or expression of the vocabulary.
I'm not convinced that "document type" is any more wedded to syntactic
expression, and it has the advantage of already meaning exactly what we want
it to mean.
Basically, you'll need to explain to me why the XHTML spec is wrong in its
usage. And this is one place where I'm probably a descriptivist rather than a
prescriptivist: that is, if the major modularization initiative on the Web
already uses a particular set of terms, then we should be following that
existing usage rather than inventing our own.
Dept PRG IBM Canada phone: 416-915-8262
Toronto Information Development