Re: Ruminations on the future of DocBook

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

/ Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com> was heard to say:
[...]
| 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).

I don't want to go there. That would IMHO only be possible if the
constraints of the language were equally expressable in all the
schemas. That would require that the constraints be the lowest common
denominator. (And actually I think there are constraints that can't
practically be expressed in DTDs anyway.)

| 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.")

Well, no one else gives us exclusions so it's not a comparative
shortcoming.

| 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.

What is an implementation of DocBook?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

- -- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | Sometimes in life situations
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | develop that only the half-crazy
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | can get out of.--La Rochefoucauld
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQE/FvDrOyltUcwYWjsRApBQAJ4huATFOiUs+mk96AU/vu4BOr2IQQCdF2qX
G4TaN3U5lHu2aSlM6hF+Ww4=
=sCJS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----