Norman Walsh wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> / Tobias Reif <> was heard to say:
> [...]
> | 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).
>
> I don't want to go there. That would IMHO only be possible if the
> constraints of the language were equally expressable in all the
> schemas. That would require that the constraints be the lowest common
> denominator. (And actually I think there are constraints that can't
> practically be expressed in DTDs anyway.)
So you plan on supplying one normative RNG plus a non-normative DTD and
a non-normative XSD? Seems to be a sensible plan.
> | 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.
>
> What is an implementation of DocBook?
Any tool processing DocBook documents and claiming to support its features.
Tobi
--
http://www.pinkjuice.com/
