[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!"
Thanks, John. That explains it and why the interpretation sent to me that this was to be regarded as further evidence that DTDs are going away was in error. Umm... the formal specification is informative? That seems backward. Can you or anyone who cares to explain why that is the case since informative descriptions are typically non-binding? When doing a validation, I need to use the ROA that is binding. Perhaps it is a legal tangle where in one process for applying the record (reading an ROA to determine rules for the implementation) the prose is binding, but in another process, (determining if a transaction content conforms), the informative description becomes normative for the transaction. Of course, it would need to be a complete description. Ok. I think I understand that. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...] Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > That makes it easy to explain why the DTD > is there even if not why it is non-normative. > That still makes no sense to me. Two reasons: 1) it is incomplete 2) in W3C recommendations, the prose is normative, the formal specification informative, as a rule. -- There is / one art || John Cowan <jcowan@r...> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|