[dsdl-discuss] Re: Part 4

> Would you like it to be formally submitted to National Bodies at this stage?

No, I was just asking.

> > How about "shall be"? Probably, I do not understand English, but English
> > for ISO standards is a variation of English.
>
> The difference between "shall be" and "can be" is that in the first case it
> "always must be" and in the secont it means "may in appropriate cases be".

Table G.3 in the directives part 2 explicitly disallows such use of "can".

> I look forward to trying to get to grips with the final version and to
> sorting out how to use this properly. I'm going to have to draw myself some
> diagrams before I can get my head around it. At present the RELAX spec is
> not sufficient for me to visualize what is happening fully.

You might want to begin with Annex B. It is real and demonstrates the use
of modes, unwrap, and attach. I am willing to provide another informative
Annex for demonstrating multi-namespace validation candidates. That annex
should probably borrow the RDF example in "8 Related namespaces" of the NRL
spec. Although you wrote "Should you try to complete incomplete sections ...
not be submitted to national bodies", I believe that an informative annex
for responding your comment is acceptable.

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)