Re: [docbook] Re: Ruminations on the future of DocBook

[Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>]

Jirka Kosek wrote:
 > Tobias Reif wrote:
 >> 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.
 >
 > Having formal syntax description of DocBook in some language (e.g.
 > RelaxNG) as normative part of DocBook standard doesn't mean that tools
 > must be RelaxNG aware.

Yes I know, I didn't say it would.
Instead I wrote "tools processing DocBook documents should not be 
required to support any specific schema language".

My point is *general*, and adresses long-term strategies. It mostly 
warns about things that are purely fictional (potential dependencies in 
general), and does not refer to specific technical issues that are here 
today (other than DTD default attributes etc, which should disappear 
anyways).

If I would refer to specific Relax NG issues, I would explicitly say so.

 > I definitively think that DocBook standard should formally, precisely
 > and unambiguously define DocBook grammar and this can't be done
 > without
 > some sort of formal language. AFAIK the best language for this is RNG
 > at these days.

Just above I wrote "I do think that there should be one normative schema 
included in the spec (eg a normative/official RNG)".
An  weeks ago I wrote
"Sure there must be at least one normative schema in addition to the 
human lang spec."

So I agree with you, and I'd happy with a normative RNG, just as you are.

My point or my description thereof seems to be extremely prone to 
misunderstanding, sorry if the latter is the case.

Tobi

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