Re: [office] Exchanging RelaxNG XML of the ODF spec to the compactsyntax

Michael,

Michael Brauer
> Hi Patrick,
>
> well, I think what we can do in addition to your suggestion is to 
> provide a compact schema with new drafts that we upload. This would 
> allow us to get some experience with them before we actually replace 
> anything in the schema itself, which would be a step that actually is 
> difficult to revert is something goes wrong.
Great idea! Thanks!

I suppose I spent too many years as a sysadmin. I don't mind change, but 
I do want it tested, repeatedly, before actually switching over.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> Patrick Durusau wrote:
>> Bruce,
>>
>> Actually I asked Svante about this and he suggested:
>>
>> Relax -> compact Relax, followed by:
>>
>> compact Relax -> Relax^1, followed by:
>>
>> diff on Relax and Relax^1.
>>
>> I would add some spot checking on some of the more complex 
>> constructions, say about 5% of the total. Just as a sanity check.
>>
>> Hope you are having a great day!
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
>>> Dave Pawson wrote:
>>>> On 15/08/07,  <> wrote:
>>>>> Question is do we beleive that the Trang conversion is perfect and 
>>>>> will not
>>>>> introduce any errors?
>>>> The author of Trang believes this is not true.
>>>
>>> An awkward sentence construction: what's the referent "this"?
>>>
>>> From the rest of your message, it sound like it is "that conversion 
>>> is not perfect" (e.g. a double-negative), which would mean we can be 
>>> safe assuming it is "perfect"?
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau

Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Acting Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Co-Editor, OpenDocument Format (OASIS, ISO/IEC 26300)