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

There are a couple of points.

1) while you are probably technically correct, in the sense that the current
s-f-s is a valid document according to the XSDL 1.0 spec, and that if you
had a validator which had already hard-wired in all of the constraints of
that spec, then it would probably parse to a description of itself, that is
far less useful than one that is a valid document according to the XSDL 1.0
spec and but did not require a validator which had already hard-wired
exactly those constraints that one could derive by parsing the schema.

2) while it may be that what you say three times is true, it is generally
the case that true things are already true the first time they are stated,
and it is very hard to say exactly the same thing three times in different
ways.

Matthew

They standardized with thimbles, they standardized with care;
  They standardized with forks and hope;
They threatened its life with a railway-share;
  They charmed it with smiles and soap.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk [mailto:ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk]
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 1:50 PM
> To: Fuchs, Matthew
> Cc: Jonathan Robie; www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
> Subject: 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 18:50:42 UTC