- From: Sebastian Rahtz <Sebastian.Rahtz@oucs.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:48:00 +0100
- To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- CC: public-i18n-its@w3.org
Felix Sasaki wrote: > > that's true as well. I think we have two choices: > > - 1 Rely on the prose description, which says (or should say) what is > mandatory. It says even more than a schema, e.g. that the value of > its:selector is an XPath expression. fair point. if we have prose which is normative, you might as well go the whole way and write BNF productions by hand (as I assume XSLT does), and the schema(s) can be part of implementation testing. > - 2 Rely on the ODD definitions, and say that these are normative. (no > matter if they are written as "production rules" or visualized in a > style like http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/html/TD.html ). in that case parts of the schemas *do* become normative. I am sorry to have raised this so late. I had been assuming until relatively recently that the schemas were normative and I hadnt thought through the implications of them not being so. -- 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 12:48:20 UTC