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

Francis,

Thank you for revising the text. Having finished the BRM, we can go
back to our work.
>
> 1) Is the list of Parts of DSDL in the Foreword correct?

I think so.

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

It depends how you mention URIs. If you do not mention URIs normatively,
RFC 3986 is not needed.

However, "An IRI shall be a URI that conforms to IRI." is not correct.
"URI that is an IRI as defined in IRI." is also incorrect. In my
understanding, an IRI containing non-ASCII characters is NOT an URI.

The abstract of RFC 3987 is shown below:

   This document defines a new protocol element, the Internationalized
   Resource Identifier (IRI), as a complement to the Uniform Resource
   Identifier (URI). An IRI is a sequence of characters from the
   Universal Character Set (Unicode/ISO 10646). A mapping from IRIs to
   URIs is defined, which means that IRIs can be used instead of URIs,
   where appropriate, to identify resources.

   The approach of defining a new protocol element was chosen instead of
   extending or changing the definition of URIs. This was done in order
   to allow a clear distinction and to avoid incompatibilities with
   existing software. Guidelines are provided for the use and
   deployment of IRIs in various protocols, formats, and software
   components that currently deal with URIs.

> 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?

I don't have an opinion.

> 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.

I have used <pre> for specifying RNC grammars. Does <pre> work for you?
>
> 5) I have changed the syntax production for default datatype library
> declarations to be more consistent with other declarations.

Looks fine to me.

> 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?

It appears that UK would like to avoid xsd:NCName and xsd:anyURI even if
the schema becomes loose. Although I do not like W3C XML Schema, I do
not go that far. But I do not oppose.

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)