Re: Relax NG specs

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

/ James Clark <jjc@thaiopensource.com> was heard to say:
| I think the source for our documents should be XML, and we should provide at
| least HTML and PDF representations of them.  I plan to use a home-brew
| schema (with some special-purpose semantic markup) and generate HTML using
| XSLT.

Hmm. Could I encourage you to consider DocBook? I'd like to see OASIS 
adopt it as the standard XML format for specs since it is itself an OASIS
spec.

I have a stylesheet that does a reasonable job producing HTML and will
(real soon now) make one that produces similar PDF.

See http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/entity/spec-2001-05-17.html

| How accessible is the current TREX formal spec?  Is it too hard?  Do we need
| something providing the same information as the formal spec but in an easier
| to understand, less formal way (perhaps with the formalism in an appendix)?

The current formal spec for TREX is tough going. OTOH, I like its
formality and I think that's an important aspect of this work.

I think what I'd like to see is a lot more explanation in the formal
spec. Some prose (perhaps non normative) that describes in a less
formal way what each of the formal statements means.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM   | Why shouldn't things be largely absurd,
XML Standards Engineer | futile, and transitory? They are so, and we
Technology Dev. Group  | are so, and they and we go very well
Sun Microsystems, Inc. | together.--Santayana