- From: len bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:30:22 -0500
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote: > > 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. That was not the conjecture made. I said that it was false that a technically complete specification could not be written which includes a normative reference. > 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. Threats are rhetoric too. I suspect those whom you could encourage have less influence than you require to have an effect. > Sometimes I find your rhetoric entertaining. Tit. And sometimes I find your attempts to use logic to disguise politics funny. Tat. > But this > is one of the few black and white issues around, and I > don't appreciate your rhetorical answer. So? > > Consequence arises from action not declaration. > > Otherwise, the word would be the thing. What followed was simple enough. A normative reference does not preclude the editors from writing a technically complete specification that requires the implementor to read ISO 8879. The consequence arises from the action; if the specification is incomplete, the fault lies with the authors. The idea of XML 1.0 (the number) is to enable that with a smaller scope. If by increasing that scope, they make their jobs undoable, that is an action that has consequence. They can't do their jobs. That is straightforward and not rhetorical. Is XML a subset of SGML? If so, by what measure or action can one ensure it remains so? Conjecture: You want a non-normative reference because essentially, you don't want XML to be SGML. Is that the case? A normative reference prevents that in definition if not in practice. The lesson learned from HTML and HTTP was that no definition can prevent bad practice. Usually, conformance testing is the best compromise for enforcement, but in the end, justice under law is a practice itself, and this tests men, not software. Rhetoric? Well, then most law is rhetoric. Read a few Supreme Court decisions. It comes down to authoritative opinions, not proofs. The other benefit of scoped actions is that they enable other actions to occur with some rough synchronization. In this case, the desire of many is that as XML design proceeds, SGML ammendments also proceed to enable these to remain harmonized and mutually reinforcing. Is this not a good goal? Is this not a goal of the W3C? It is an issue of authority. W3C recommendations or ISO 8879? I had hoped this was not at issue. len
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 1997 21:30:46 UTC