Re: [xmlvoc-comment] xmlvoc: Requirements (V0.1 Draft): Defining Core,Why not XTM?

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

* Patrick Durusau
| 
| I think I "know" what is meant by "core XML standards and
| technologies" but would an initial listing better set the scope of
| our work?

It would probably be more useful to say "all specifications defined by
the W3C, and ISO's SC34". We could then add others explicitly, if
needed.

However, I am not sure why we would do this. If we're not going to do
cover instances, why must we specify this?

If we are going to cover instances, why would we do such a thing?
What's the point of creating a PSI set that will be out of date before
it is even published and that we *know* we can't keep up to date?
 
| Would prefer as follows:
| 
| Proposed #4: The core vocabulary shall be documented in XTM and may
| appear in other formats.
| 
| Proposed #8: The recommendations should contain an example of such an
| extension. The extension example should be provided in XTM format and
| may be provided in other formats.

Agreed.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >