[dsdl-discuss] Re: Part 4

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 17:31:34 +1000
Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au> wrote:

>
> Well done, Murata-san. The addition of the terms and references makes it
> a lot clearer than the previous one.

Thanks. I have now completed the semantics section as well as the
example annex, which combines XForms and XHTML2. Hopefully, the current
version is even clearer.

> I think you should remove the RELAX NG schemas from the text body into
> normative Annexes. They drive me crazy. (What are the plans for
> standardizing RELAX NG Compact?? I think it is soooooo much better for
> the purpose of documentation in a human-readable text like an ISO standard.)

I agree that the compact syntax is much more human readable. I am using the XML syntax
only because Part 4 is likely to become an IS before the compact syntax becomes an IS.

I agree that the RNG schemas are a bit painful to read. But I still have not moved
them to normative annexes yet. If we do so, we will have two sections
having only one paragraph. Will that be acceptable and readable than the current
version?

> Schema error on page 16: the attributes for xml:space are declared on
> xml:base.

Thanks!

> I suppose section 5.1 of the data model actually belongs in the Notation
> section, in the ISO editorial rules. I think the other parts of 5.1
> might be better explained in terms of "primitive actions" rather than
> data modeling. So the function of the syntax section becomes explaining
> how modes in the simplified syntax map to primitive actions.

Section 5.1 is borrowed from the data model section of Part 2. I think that
the structure of Part 2 and that of Part 4 should be aligned if possible.

I have now completed the semantics section (Section 9). One can
move 5.4 through 5.7 to Section 9.2, but I am not sure the result is more readable.
How do others feel?

Cheers,

-- 
MURATA Makoto <murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp>
--
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)