This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
[docbook] Re: Ruminations on the future of DocBook
- From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif at pinkjuice dot com>
- To: docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
- Cc: Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:05:44 +0200
- Subject: [docbook] Re: Ruminations on the future of DocBook
- References: <878yspd1hn.fsf@nwalsh.com> <3ED72340.7040906@pinkjuice.com> <ltk7c8yc3c.fsf@colina.demon.co.uk> <3ED73006.20301@pinkjuice.com> <87d6g9ro2p.fsf@nwalsh.com>
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/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-help@lists.oasis-open.org