Norman Walsh wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> / Tobias Reif <> was heard to say:
> | 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.
>
> I don't think I can accept the latter constraint.
If we agree on the former constraint, that's quite cool already :)
> But suppose I could,
> how would you propose to formally describe the structures that are
> valid. What constitutes valid is not an academic question, it has
> direct bearing on how tools work.
I'm not sure what I meant back then, but I do think that there should be
one normative schema included in the spec (eg a normative/official RNG).
I guess what I meant was that tools processing DocBook documents should
not be required to support any specific schema language (eg requiring
WXS+PSVI support for conformance). DTD support is required through the
XML spec, but ideally the DBX spec should avoid building on this type of
dependency.
Tobi
P.S.
1. I know that until there's some new entity mechanism we can't fully
drop DTD.
2. I like and use DTD, but don't want to depend on it.
--
http://www.pinkjuice.com/
