Sebastian Rahtz wrote: > apropos of nothing, what does it actually mean to say that our schemas > are not normative? it says that in case of conflict, the prose is > more authoritative? If you look at the definition at http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#conformance-product-schema : these conformance clauses talk only about positions of ITS declarations in a schema. They don't say s.t. about the actual schema fragments, i.e. whether parameter entities are used or not. I thought of this separation because depending on the schema design, you would use different means. E.g., a highly modularized schema might use PEs / patterns / groups to add ITS attributes to all elements, e.g. <!ENTITY % comm.att ".... %its-local-att;"> A schema without such entity layers might just do <!ATTLIST ... its:translate its:term ...> for each element. However, both schemas would be conformant to http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#conformance-product-schema > > are schemas/dtds always non-normative in W3C specs? > It depends on the spec. E.g., XML Schema defines a normative schema, see http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#normative-schemaSchema XSLT 2.0 a non-normative one, see http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt20/#schema-for-xslt - FelixReceived on Friday, 31 March 2006 06:24:15 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:12:46 GMT