[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Normative language specification
> -----Original Message----- > From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 2010 January 13 16:45 > To: Bruce Nevin (bnevin); Ogden, Jeff; dita > Subject: Re: [dita] Normative language specification > > Again, if there is a out and out conflict between what the prose says > and > what the DTDs say, then there is a bug in one or the other, but until > the > bug is fixed, the prosed is presumed to be correct. For example, if the > prose says "you can have zero or more foos" and the DTD requires at > least > one foo, until the prose is corrected (assuming it's wrong in this > example), > a document with zero foos is, by definition, a conforming document for > this > particular rule. Right, but is an application that uses the DTD and gives a validity error for the document with zero foos a conforming DITA application? Per your words, it is not. So what should the implementor who is producing an out-of-the-box DITA application supposed to include in its distribution? The broken DTD that will complain about the valid document or a privately corrected version of the DTD that isn't what OASIS is distributing? I'm not that worried about the issue, but that, I think, is Bruce's point. paul
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]