From: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>
> I think this means that SGML is out of scope, other than to say we are
> limiting ourselves to that application profile of SGML that is XML.
I support
1) DSDL languages be formally defined using the XML 1.n profile only
2) DSDL schemas may also be marked up using some other SGML, but that is
on the user's head (and to allow us to upgrade to future versions of XML without pain)
3) DSDL functions should operate on properties that could be in the XML infoset only
ignoring others that an SGML ESIS may have
4) DSDL validation may take place on any parsed SGML documents
5) We should be careful to use XML 1.n when the specific restriction to XML 1.n is
required but SGML otherwise.
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
-- DSDL members discussion list To unsubscribe, please send a message with the command "unsubscribe" to dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org (mailto:dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org?Subject=unsubscribe)Received on Sat Oct 26 09:00:02 2002
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 03 2004 - 14:00:27 UTC