- From: Sebastian Rahtz <Sebastian.Rahtz@oucs.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 12:41:01 +0100
- To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- CC: bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org, public-i18n-its@w3.org
Felix Sasaki wrote: > > 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. Hmm. I see. But if the schema is not normative, where do we tell people that if they implement the markup, it must follow these constraints? For example, if <translateRule> has a mandatory attribute "selector", but the schema implementing this is not normative, people can implement it with an optional attribute. Doesn't this threaten interoperability? > However, both schemas would be conformant to > http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#conformance-product-schema I could come up with something that conformed to this, but wasn't remotely like the current schemas... >> 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 but XSLT has an independent formal definition, no? -- Sebastian Rahtz *Open Source and Sustainability* 10-12 April 2006, Oxford http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/events/2006-04-10-12/ Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431 OSS Watch: JISC Open Source Advisory Service http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk
Received on Friday, 31 March 2006 11:41:18 UTC