[dsdl-discuss] DSDL Part 9 - revised text ready for FDIS ballot?

Dear DSDL-ers

I have revised the text of DSDL Part 9 in accordance with the Disposition of
Comments.

I would appreciate some assistance in checking this draft:

1) Is the list of Parts of DSDL in the Foreword correct?

2) Are the normative references correct and sufficient? Is it sufficient to
reference RFC 3987, or should RFC 3986 also be referenced?

3) I have shortened names in accordance with the Czech NB comment and
believe I have done so in a consistent manner. Are the new names
satisfactory?

4) I have changed the appearance of literal strings so that they use a
distinctive monospaced font. Does this make the syntax productions more or
less legible? In particular, are the syntax productions for lit and lita now
more clear? I presume these syntax productions will not be right-justified
in the final published text, but there seems no way of achieving this in XML
currently.

5) I have changed the syntax production for default datatype library
declarations to be more consistent with other declarations.

6) I have removed normative references to W3C XML Schema Datatypes, at the
suggestion of Alex Brown. Are the constraints specified following the RNC
schema (Section 5) satisfactory?

Thanks for your help!

Francis Cave

--
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)