RE: [docbook-tc] Proposed change to scheme versioning

["Rowland, Larry" <larry.rowland@hp.com>]

While there is a short section on defining namespaces, most of the document referred to is about a textual document like the specification, errata, and other things that map to collections of words.  I think following the Namespace rules makes sense, but naming schemas using the standard seems less appropriate (and questionable whether it is even possible for complex collections of files like the authoritative RelaxNG schema with embedded Schematron is).

Regards,
Larry Rowland

-----Original Message-----
From: docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Jirka Kosek
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 5:31 AM
To: Norman Walsh
Cc: docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [docbook-tc] Proposed change to scheme versioning

On 15.1.2012 17:11, Norman Walsh wrote:

> I have no problem naming the standards document according to the OASIS
> rules, but I'm less sanguine about applying those rules to every
> artifact.

Exactly. We should serve users of standard and continue to use naming
schema to which are users already used to.

					Jirka

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
------------------------------------------------------------------