Re: Towards a consensus draft (urgent)

Hash: SHA1

I guess I want to step back just a bit, and clarify _why_ I've been
pushing back on trying to spell out fixup in detail.  It's because I
think this is a case where the relevant invariants are easy to state
and easy for readers to understand, and the mechanisms necessary to
achieve those invariants are neither.  In such a case, it's a good
idea to stop with the invariants.  We've got them now in 2.6.1 -- via
the combination of "above all, do no harm" (that is, the information
which *must* and *should* be preserved other things being equal) and
"must serialize to well-formed and ns-well-formed".

I have _no_ problem with giving non-normative _guidance_ on our
current best guess at how to go about doing the necessary, including
pointers to others in the same or similar boats and how _they_ are
going about it.  I note the (to me at least very positive) example of
Schema 1.1's approach to restriction: instead of the huge constructive
definition of 1.0, we now have a short statement of the goal
("Restriction is subsumption" == subset of tag sequences accepted) and
a non-normative appendix pointing to some external resources which
implementors may find helpful.

- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail:
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)


Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2007 14:35:31 UTC