Re: bottom line - was RE: Schema for schemas and XML schema DTD

"Fuchs, Matthew" <matthew.fuchs@commerceone.com> writes:

I _think_ we're in violent agreement.  What is normative (speaking
carefully now) is the schema for schemas.  We can't present that as
such (it's abstract), so we present a schema document which, given 
the correspondence rules set out in the spec., corresponds to that
schema.  XML being XML, and schema documents being schema documents,
the schema document currently in the spec. is only one of an infinite
number which could be there, all of which correspond to the same
(desired) schema.

I take it _that_ the current schema document _does_ correspond to the
desired schema is not at issue.  I hope I've convinced you that a
schema document differing from it only in that it lacked a reference
to XMLSchema.dtd as an external subset would _also_ correspond to it.

> When it comes right down to it, what I'm suggesting is that the official
> version of the s-f-s be the normalized version of the one in the spec, so
> that regardless of how one parses it, one gets the same infoset.

What the _right_ schema document to have in the spec. from the
perspective of clarity, implementability or simplicity is clearly a
subject we can discuss: that it must be _correct_ is not subject to
debate.  I'll address the bootstrapping/implementation issue in reply
to your other message.

> Given that, the presence of the DTD declaration is annoying but
> insignificant.

Insignificant, as regards correctness, yes.  Annoying, evidently so to 
you, but not to me.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
          W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/

Received on Monday, 6 November 2000 16:49:57 UTC