- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 19:49:06 -0500
- To: cbullard@hiwaay.net
- CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
David put forth a conjecture: IF XML cites ISO8879 normatively, THEN implementors of XML are implementors of ISO8879, and hence may need to consult that spec. You claimed the conjecture is false, and I have asked you to defend your position. I'll ask one more time. If I get rhetoric in return this time, I'll just dismiss it; I encourage others to do the same. Sometimes I find your rhetoric entertaining. But this is one of the few black and white issues around, and I don't appreciate your rhetorical answer. len bullard wrote: > > Dan Connolly wrote: > > > > David G. Durand wrote: > > > > > I still disagree with this. A normative reference turns 8879 into mandatory > > > > reading for implementors, and implies that _if_ there's a hole in the XML > > > > spec, then 8879 may automatically be invoked to clarify things > > len bullard wrote: > > > > No. It says where XML uses SGML as the intellectual basis of its > > > construction, it is legally obligated to maintain that inviolate. > > > > Huh?????? > > > > You seem to be using the term "normative reference" in some > > way that I'm not familiar with. Please explain. The meaning > > of the term "normative reference" that I'm familiar has exactly > > the consequences that David points out. > > Consequence arises from action not declaration. > Otherwise, the word would be the thing. -- Dan Connolly http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 1997 20:48:23 UTC