[dsdl-discuss] Re: Is SGML in scope for DSDL?

From: "Martin Bryan" <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>

> The ability to make changes to models that are dependent on the contents of
> elements. (Remember XML 1.n includes the use of DTDs as well as the rules
> for well-formed documents!)

No, you have really lost me here. I think we must be talking at cross purposes.

There has not been the slightest hint from anyone so far, that I have heard,
that DSDL is not post-parse. Consequently, the rules for XML DTDs and for
SGML DTDs are simply not relevant.

Or do you see DSDL as being referenced by DOCTYPE declarations?

> The techniques we develop to identify choreographies associated with
> instances (unless we force them into PIs.)

Are you suggesting should we have one way of binding instances to schemas
for XML and another for SGML? Actually, I think there is feeling in
some quarters that we should leave binding issues alone, initially. (Don't
have an opinion yet, myself.)

> Element renaming

How does this relate to differences between XML and SGML?

> Yes, but surely we need to be able to pass on information about which
> character set the element/attribute has been validated against as part of
> the enhanced infoset created by the validation process. To suggest that we
> should validate and not enhance the information set as a result seems
> illogical to me.

Yet, I believe that was the general position of me, James and Murata-san.
The document can be transformed in various ways before validation,
but after validation comes user-agent diagnostics and reporting that
are out-of-scope for DSDL. Something to discuss further.

In Barcelona we agreed to XML-in/XML-out specifically to not allow
infoset-in/PSVI-out (unless the PSVI can be trivially represented in
XML without upsetting any of the basic relations of the document,
I expect: for example )

> We'll find an editor for this when we are ready to do it. We cannot,
> however, just "show how datatyping can be done": we need formal productions
> to extend both 8879 and the XML DTD spec.
 
??? We cannot extend the XML DTD spec. It is not ours to extend.

As for extending 8879, sure the complete flop of LTDR and AFDR
should make us pretty wary of that?

Cheers
Rick

--
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)