Perhaps the best compromise is to publish a suggested "hack" to the schema
for folks who validate, one step short of normatively revving the schema.
-Greg
On 4/26/07 11:47 AM, "Scott Cantor" <> wrote:
>> But still, it would be nice for validating implementations to not have to
>> introduce hacks to work around this issue. I guess it's a pretty low
>> priority erratum, though.
>
> Obviously it's errata to record. However, I don't believe OASIS has a
> procedure to handle normative errata, only non-normative (or stuff you can
> finesse to be non-normative). This doesn't really qualify.
>
> Going beyond that, there's the question of how to revise a schema, which is
> borderline impossible. Short of revving the version attribute inside the
> schema element, I would be at a loss as to what to do.
>
> Lest this turn into a schema versioning thread, let's not and say we did.
> Nobody's going to change anybody's mind about versions, hints, namespaces vs.
> filenames, schema lookup, etc.
>
> -- Scott
>
>
