On 15.5.2013 23:23, Dr. David Filip wrote:
> However, I do not agree that introducing extensibility and changing schema
> is not a substantive change. Anyway, I would hardly call it editorial.
Spec is just being aligned with common usage. As people introduced their
own rule elements and no one was surprised about this it was just spec
which wasn't properly document this shared view of possible extensions.
> Extensibility in this sense has not been discussed before and we do not
> have a stable spec change to reflect it by now.
> My opinion is that it is better to lose one week now than many weeks later
> on if the change is pushed into the second last call.
Do you think that this change is controversial?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jirka Kosek e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
Professional XML consulting and training services
DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 rep.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bringing you XML Prague conference http://xmlprague.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 22:42:56 UTC