Re: [Bug 3062] Need to write examples in the spec as valid XML

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

- Felix