[dsdl-discuss] Re: Response to rest of Martin's comments

MURATA Makoto wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:14:48 +1000
> Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>until the WG decides whether it wants to adopt Part 7 using the Part 3
>>framework.
>
>
> I oppose to standardize Schematron-based binding as part of Part 7. Such
> a binding should be moved to Part 3.
>
> I am particularly unhappy with the conformance section. It certainly
> mandates the support of Schematron.

Yes, we need to sort out whether Part 7 is a schema language with
selectors or just a kind of repertoire specification language without
selectors.

By the way, I believe that that the recommendation that Martin
has reminded us of (from Phillie)

"Part 7 should be restricted to creating named character sets using
block names, ranges, and properties as defined in Unicode database, and
should not be concerned with things like sorting, UC/LC mapping, etc.
For private use characters the text should only refer to the code
points, not define any properties of the characters."

is concerned with limiting the scope from Diedrik's proposal, which
included collation and so on. I do not believe that the first sentence
was meant to be semantically separate from the second sentence. If the
intent was that Part 7 is not a self-standing schema language, why
was I asked to create the Schematron binding?

> Here is my counter proposal for the scope of Part 7.
>
> <scope>
> <p><This>This committee-draft standard</This> specifies a mechanism
> for declaring and validating the allowed character repertoire. This
> language may be used from the other parts (including Part 3) of this
> standard for constraining data content, attribute values, identifiers
> and other markup in XML documents.</p>
>
> <p><This>This committee-draft standard</This> establishes requirements
> for declaring the allowed character repertoire and also specifies when a
> string is valid against such declarations.</p>
> </scope>
>

I am happy either way: I am not the customer here :-)

But I certainly don't see any need to add my suggested Part 7 to part 3
if we want to promote using it with some future augmentation of Part 2.

I don't want to add fluff (and things that will not be implemented)
to Part 3. If the requirement/expectation for Part 7 is actually
"Make a character repertoire declaration mechanism that will be used
by some future RELAX NG revision" then that is fine. But we need to
be clear what the goals are and what people will actually implement.

(However, this seems to be moving away from what I thought DSDL was:
a collection of small schema languages. Instead, it moves it more
towards DSDL being a set of complementary technologies to suit
RELAX NG. That is a fine direction, just not the direction I thought
we were heading.)

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)