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

Rick stated

> 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.

There is no reason why Part 7 should not cover both character-repetoire
naming and specification using a subset of Diedrick's proposal, and
character-repetoire application and validation, as per Rick's proposal. I
see the two as complimentary, though we still need to work out how to
combine them into a single document.

Marttin

--
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)