W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > June 1997

Re: Normative Reference to SGML?

From: Eve L. Maler <elm@arbortext.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:02:52 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970630110252.00ad4620@village.doctools.com>
To: W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
I believe it's incorrect to say "By definition" in this text.  It's by
design that valid XML documents are conformant, and (who knows? could it
be?) we might just possibly have made a teeny tiny mistake that makes them
nonconformant (which we'll fix immediately, of course!).  This weekend, I
made a comment to the editors suggesting that they swap "definition" for
"design"; it would be more correct in fact and in spirit.

	Eve

At 09:47 AM 6/30/97 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>Paul Prescod wrote:
>> 
>> Isn't the following text from the current XML spec a "normative
>> reference": "By definition, valid XML documents are conformant SGML
>> documents in the sense described in ISO standard 8879."
>
>Yes, that certainly looks like a normative reference to me.
>
>But the handling of references in the xml spec[1] is non-traditional:
>there's a touchy-feely "relationship to existing standards"
>section and section called "references" which is really a
>bibliography, but no a list of normative references.
>
>So the current draft[1] seems unclear on whether the reference
>to the SGML spec is normative.
>
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/WD-xml-lang-970331.html
>
>-- 
>Dan Connolly
>http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 30 June 1997 11:00:17 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:04:45 EDT