W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > May 2005

Re: SVG12: formal vs prose

From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 22:56:53 +0900
Message-ID: <428F3E25.6070404@expway.fr>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Robin Berjon wrote:
>>What the paragraph above states in not that all the requirements in the 
>>schema are in the prose, it says that if there are *conflicting* 
>>requirements between the prose and the schema, then the prose takes 
> This does not satisfy me, at the very least this clarification needs to
> be added to the draft

It has been.

>, but that would not make much sense. If the prose
> considers a specific document compliant while the schema does not, that
> is a conflict between prose and schema.

Precisely. The prose is normative, the schema is normative. Since both 
constrain whan an SVG document may be and while we are doing our best to 
ensure that this does not happen, it is possible that the two may 
conflict. In such situations an implementer or a content creator needs 
to know which to follow. We are saying that it is the prose.

Some constraints are also impossible to express using a schema language. 
For such situations, it is important that people understand that 
comforming to the schema alone is not enough, and that if the schema is 
too lax compared to the prose, the prose is the source of authority.

> That's redundant with appendix D.3.1 so I arrive
> at my original conclusion that either all conflicts or the statement
> under discussion should be removed.

I'm not sure what you mean by "all conflicts should be removed". The 
statement can surely be moved around if there is a good reason to do so.

Robin Berjon
   Research Scientist
   Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Saturday, 21 May 2005 13:56:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:03 UTC