RE: [emergency] HAVE comments - explicitly identifying the normative parts in the data dictionary

["Alessandro Triglia" <sandro@oss.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mary McRae
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 08:56
> To: 'Alessandro Triglia'; 'Lee Tincher'
> Cc: 'Dwarkanath, Sukumar'; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE comments - explicitly 
> identifying the normative parts in the data dictionary
> 
> I'm afraid that you've read much more into my note than was intended. 
> 
>  
> 
> Here the language from the TC Process:
> 
> All schema and XML instances, whether by inclusion or by 
> reference, including fragments of such, must be well formed. 
> All expressions must be valid. Each schema and XML instance 
> that is part of the specification must be delivered in its 
> own separate plain text file.
> 
>  
> 
> The intent is that oftentimes errors occur when 
> cutting/pasting schemas into a document - characters may be 
> transposed to other symbols, bits lost, etc. It's also 
> extremely difficult for an end user to set up their 
> environment if they have to cut/paste the schema out of a 
> word processing document or worse, a PDF. So the thing that 
> is actually parsable  is the normative version, if there is 
> one. Note that the DITA TC produces its specification in both 
> DTD and XSD formats - the DTD version is explicitly declared 
> as normative. The TC can always decide that a schema isn't 
> normative, but they can't decide that the version of the 
> schema printed in the document is normative and the separate 
> text file is informational only.


Thanks, Mary.

I still believe that it is very desirable for a standard if a certain
normative provision occurs only once, regardless of the language in which it
is expressed--XML Schema, plain English, or dictionary entries.

I see that OASIS doesn't require this, but I believe it's a very good thing.

Alessandro