[tm-pubsubj-comment] Fw: Wording issue - another question from Sam

[Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>]

[Sam Hunting wrote]


> I note in 0.4 the following text: "as defined by ISO 13250 XTM",
> followed by a definition.
> 
> This would imply, at least to the innocent or unknowing, that the TEXT
> of XTM 1.0 had been included in 13250. However, only the XTM 1.0 DTD
> has been included -- not the text.
> 
> From a purely editorial perspective, I think this would be a really
> unfortunate confusion to introduce.

I think Sam makes a good point there, and I'm amazed that no one made it before.

I propose we replace

"as defined by ISO 13250 XTM"

by

"as defined in XTM 1.0 prose"

... until ISO 13250 has settled the vocabulary issues.

Bernard