RE: [dita] Normative language specification

["Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <bnevin@cisco.com>]

Yes, that's the point, and yes, it's a corner case unlikely to occur.
Just an observation. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:56 PM
> To: dita
> 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
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS 
> TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your 
> TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgr
> oups.php 
> 
>