Re: [dsdl-discuss] Re: DIS XML for Part 3 with disposition of comments

If SVRL is causing so many problems, I would prefer to remove it than
hold up Part 3.

* If Japan has suddenly invented a policy that they everything must have
namespaces, and

* if UK has suddenly invented a policy that only Part 9 DTDs should be
allowed, and is making novel and spurious requirements on using XML DTDs
with namespaces, or

* if WG1 has suddenly invented a policy that the W3C TAG is wrong in
allowing the kinds of namespace declarations that Schematron and SVRL use,
and

* if there is also a policy that we must introduce spurious attributes to
DTDs under the bizarre reason of preventing confusion,

* or if WG1 expects that users can guess anything more than the general
area of semantics from a name,

then the best solution is remove SVRL, and perhaps add it to Part 9, if
SVRL is wanted at all.

I never asked for SVRL, and I have never believed it served any useful
purpose apart from providing an example of using Schematron in conjunction
with a standard schema (DTD) and an example of abstract patterns. I am
frankly a little pissed off that people are arguing over something almost
completely irrelevant and non-normative to Part 3.

If the WG is really saying that there needs to be more text explaining
namespaces in Schematron I dispute that: the current text is extremely
clear and explicit. If the WG is saying that there needs to be text
explaining namespaces in SVRL, I dispute that, because there SVRL spec has
no semantics apart from what is in the comments: it is minimally specified
on purpose to prevent argument. If the WG is saying that I need to
include more material on using namespaces in XML DTDs, I dispute that:
that is utterly out-of-scope for Part 3--my only requirement is that I
follow allowed and standard practise with DTDs.

A more detailed answer on the specific WG1 comments follows, and I hope
WG1 has time to discuss them.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

--
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)