Re: Regrep: Exemplary response

[Terry Allen <tallen@sonic.net>]

Jon wrote:
| | From one of the folks doing the NIST implementation, in response
| | to a suggestion of mine from Saturday, which I copied to this list.
| | 
| | I would like to see more along these lines from the Sun+Documentum
| | team:  reasoned prose directed to the committee writing the tech
| | spec for group discussion.
| 
| The Sun/Documentum team was asking: should the schema and its
| related documents form a single package, or shouldn't it?  And the
| part of Gallagher's message that seems to relate to that question
| amounts to "yes, it should."  Is this what we had to read before
| we could make that decision?

No, I posted that to xmlorg to point out that the Sun+Documentum
team should be asking these questions in the first instance ON
THE REGREP TC LIST, where they have been silent on the current
crop of implementation issues (although we got some discussion
of them in San Jose, only those attending heard it).  We are currently
in the position of making decisions in the ACXO some of which deserve
consideration in the TC.  Len's response is to my post about
eliminating the zip format for a submission package; its relevance
to the ACXO is that S+D aren't going to implement such a package,
and I was trying to make conformance easier by eliminating it.
Len points out that we at least have to save some of the semantics,
and it will take some fancy writing to craft conformance language
that requires that an implementation use them without requiring
that it represent them as XML.

What I wanted read was my post about "the simple case".

regards, Terry