[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!"
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 10:33:21 -0600
Thanks, John. That explains it and
why the interpretation sent to me that
this was to be regarded as further evidence
that DTDs are going away was in error.
Umm... the formal specification is
informative? That seems backward.
Can you or anyone who cares to explain
why that is the case since informative
descriptions are typically non-binding?
When doing a validation, I need to use
the ROA that is binding. Perhaps it
is a legal tangle where in one process
for applying the record (reading an ROA
to determine rules for the implementation)
the prose is binding, but in another process,
(determining if a transaction content
conforms), the informative description
becomes normative for the transaction.
Of course, it would need to be a complete
description. Ok. I think I understand that.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: John Cowan [mailto:email@example.com]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> That makes it easy to explain why the DTD
> is there even if not why it is non-normative.
> That still makes no sense to me.
Two reasons: 1) it is incomplete 2) in W3C recommendations,
the prose is normative, the formal specification informative,
as a rule.
There is / one art || John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein