[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook] Ruminations on the future of DocBook
Jirka Kosek wrote: > Tobias Reif wrote: > >> I mean that no feature of DocBook should rely on any feature from any >> specific schema lang, and that no single specific schema lang should >> be normatively referenced in any DocBook spec. > > Relax NG is only tool which can be used to formally and precisely > describe syntax of DocBookNG. Yes. > Of course you can describe document type and all its content models in > prose, in human readable text. But this will be very verbose and very > hard to use description. I think you misunderstood me. Sure there must be at least one normative schema in addition to the human lang spec. The XHTML 2 working group for example plans to supply the schema in three versions, DTD, RNG, WXS (XSD), all of them will be normative (AFAIK). > As Relax NG doesn't have features like attribute defaulting its usage > has no sideeffects I know, that's one of it's design goals. (I was talking about general aspects, not just RNG.) > and you don't need process RelaxNG grammar in order > to process DocBook Yes, that is actually one symptom of my suggested goal. > (however this is not true for DTD). And it could be false for yet another schema language. Any such dependence should be avoided. > But there > definitively should be formal description of DocBookNG grammar, this > formal description should be normative Yes. > and Relax NG is the most > suitable tool for this task at these days. It will satisfy most of the requirements, yes. (Note that Norm lists one shortcoming: http://norman.walsh.name/2003/05/21/docbook "A future version of RELAX NG might give us back our exclusions.") None of your points contradicts anything I said. Let me repeat: IMHO, no feature of DocBook should rely on any feature from any specific schema lang, and no single specific schema lang should be normatively referenced in any DocBook spec [added for clarification:] as required for a conforming implementation. > P.S. I notices that I'm using DocBookNG instead Norm's DocBook V.next > label. But I mean the same. I also thought that "DocBook NG" would be a good name, but what will the next version set (major backwards-incompatible refactoring) after that be called then? Tobi -- http://www.pinkjuice.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]