Re: Ruby

Hello Steven,

What follows is a purely personal opinion.

I'm glad to hear that you and your WG are working on
an XML Schema for Ruby.

I think it makes sense to a link as an erratum to the Ruby spec,
although it is strictly speaking not an erratum. This
would help readers to find the XML Schema

I don't think it makes sense to reissue the Ruby spec
just to add a link; the administrative overhead is just too big.

I think it would be good if the I18N WG would review the
XML Schema you produce. But my guess is that your group
will do a good job, because you are more familliar with
the DTD in the first place, whereas to us, all the DTD
trickery used there looks like black magic.

Regards,    Martin.

At 23:53 08/06/04, Steven Pemberton wrote:
>
>Hello Richard, I18N,
>
>Since XHTML Modularization 1.1 is about to go to PR, and that spec's only
>role in life is to add XML Schemas into the mix, we are now planning to
>rev XHTML 1.1 to include schemas.
>
>That means that we will shortly be producing a normative XML Schema for
>Ruby.
>
>The Ruby spec contains no normative DTDs or schemas, but has an
>informative link to the XHTML Modularization DTD for Ruby.
>http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/
>http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/#module
>
>You may want to update the Ruby spec to include a second informative link
>to the schema, in which case you should start planning for that.
>
>If you would like to nominate someone to coordinate with the production of
>the XML Schema module, please do, but we don't think it will need much
>work.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Steven Pemberton
>For the XHTML2 WG
>


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp

Received on Friday, 6 June 2008 10:31:21 UTC