Jirka Kosek wrote:
> Tobias Reif wrote:
>
>> I mean that no feature of DocBook should rely on any feature from any
>> specific schema lang, and that no single specific schema lang should
>> be normatively referenced in any DocBook spec.
>
> Relax NG is only tool which can be used to formally and precisely
> describe syntax of DocBookNG.
Yes.
> Of course you can describe document type and all its content models in
> prose, in human readable text. But this will be very verbose and very
> hard to use description.
I think you misunderstood me. Sure there must be at least one normative
schema in addition to the human lang spec. The XHTML 2 working group for
example plans to supply the schema in three versions, DTD, RNG, WXS
(XSD), all of them will be normative (AFAIK).
> As Relax NG doesn't have features like attribute defaulting its usage
> has no sideeffects
I know, that's one of it's design goals.
(I was talking about general aspects, not just RNG.)
> and you don't need process RelaxNG grammar in order
> to process DocBook
Yes, that is actually one symptom of my suggested goal.
> (however this is not true for DTD).
And it could be false for yet another schema language. Any such
dependence should be avoided.
> But there
> definitively should be formal description of DocBookNG grammar, this
> formal description should be normative
Yes.
> and Relax NG is the most
> suitable tool for this task at these days.
It will satisfy most of the requirements, yes.
(Note that Norm lists one shortcoming:
http://norman.walsh.name/2003/05/21/docbook
"A future version of RELAX NG might give us back our exclusions.")
None of your points contradicts anything I said.
Let me repeat: IMHO, no feature of DocBook should rely on any feature
from any specific schema lang, and no single specific schema lang should
be normatively referenced in any DocBook spec [added for clarification:]
as required for a conforming implementation.
> P.S. I notices that I'm using DocBookNG instead Norm's DocBook V.next
> label. But I mean the same.
I also thought that "DocBook NG" would be a good name, but what will the
next version set (major backwards-incompatible refactoring) after that
be called then?
Tobi
--
http://www.pinkjuice.com/
