Re: SVG12: formal vs prose

* Robin Berjon wrote:
>Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> [...]
>>   In the case of a conflict between the prose of this specification and
>>   the RelaxNG schema, the prose is authoritative (for example, the prose
>>   description of some attributes has a BNF grammar for allowed values,
>>   which the RelaxNG is not able to express).
>> [...]
>> This assumes that the prose states all the requirements in the schema. 
>> That's inappropriate as many constraints are only defined in the schema,
>> not in the prose. Please either remove this statement or change the
>> draft such that all constraints in the schema are in the prose aswell.
>What the paragraph above states in not that all the requirements in the 
>schema are in the prose, it says that if there are *conflicting* 
>requirements between the prose and the schema, then the prose takes 
>over. If the schema contains information that is not in the prose, they 
>couldn't possibly be in conflict.

This does not satisfy me, at the very least this clarification needs to
be added to the draft, but that would not make much sense. If the prose
considers a specific document compliant while the schema does not, that
is a conflict between prose and schema. It seems what you are trying to
say is that only documents that comply to the prose *and* schema comply
to the specification. That's redundant with appendix D.3.1 so I arrive
at my original conclusion that either all conflicts or the statement
under discussion should be removed.
Björn Höhrmann · ·
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 ·
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · 

Received on Saturday, 21 May 2005 00:51:42 UTC