[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Ruminations on the future of DocBook
Norman Walsh wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > / Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com> was heard to say: > | 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. > > I don't think I can accept the latter constraint. If we agree on the former constraint, that's quite cool already :) > But suppose I could, > how would you propose to formally describe the structures that are > valid. What constitutes valid is not an academic question, it has > direct bearing on how tools work. I'm not sure what I meant back then, but I do think that there should be one normative schema included in the spec (eg a normative/official RNG). I guess what I meant was that tools processing DocBook documents should not be required to support any specific schema language (eg requiring WXS+PSVI support for conformance). DTD support is required through the XML spec, but ideally the DBX spec should avoid building on this type of dependency. Tobi P.S. 1. I know that until there's some new entity mechanism we can't fully drop DTD. 2. I like and use DTD, but don't want to depend on it. -- http://www.pinkjuice.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]