Re: [relax-ng] Minutes RELAX NG TC telecon 2002-04-25

[James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>]

> 3. Literal newlines in strings
>
> James: Do we terminate strings with \x{} or use literal newlines?
>
> Resolved: we will allow literal newlines.

This issue was whether you allow something like

"this string
covers
multiple lines"

Given the way \x is handled, the above is allowed if and only if

"this string\x{A}covers\x{A}multiple lines"

is allowed.  The issue was whether to disallow both of the above forms and 
instead provide some other (TBD) syntax for literal newlines.  We decided 
not to disallow either of the above.

> 7. Annotating the grammar element
...
> Resolved that we will have an explicit grammar element that we can
> annotate with attributes in square brackets

Just to clarify.  We have this already.  The resolution was to get rid of 
the special syntax for annotation attributes on the implicit top-level 
grammar element.  Instead of the currently allowed

xml:space = "en"
start = ...
...

syntax, people would be required to use

[xml:space = "en"] grammar {
  start = ...
  ...
}

> 9. Mixed schema
...
> Resolved [I think] that we won't require implementation to support both
> RNG and RNC schemas but we also will not prohibit implementations from
> supporting this if they want to

I think we resolved no mixing.  That is, in a correct schema in the XML 
syntax, <include>/<externalRef> must refer to a schema in the XML syntax; 
and in a correct schema in the concrete syntax, include/externalRef must 
refer to a schema in the compact syntax.  If an implementation wants to 
support an additional (non-standard) mixed syntax, in which 
included/externalRefed schemas can have a different syntax, we cannot stop 
it, but such a mixed syntax is neither correct XML syntax nor correct 
compact syntax.

James