Re: Ruminations on the future of DocBook

[Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>]

Norman Walsh wrote:

> -----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.)


So you plan on supplying one normative RNG plus a non-normative DTD and 
  a non-normative XSD? Seems to be a sensible plan.


> | 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?


Any tool processing DocBook documents and claiming to support its features.


Tobi

-- 
http://www.pinkjuice.com/