[SPAM] Re: Input from Switzerland (CH) re WG4's processing of CH's DRs 08-0012, 08-0013, and 08-0014

[Jirka Kosek]

Horton, Gareth wrote:

> Do you agree with the Swiss position that the attribute be globally
> required?
> 
> I think it would be acceptable to have the attribute optional and indeed
> desired in T and required in S.

In S it should be required. In T, I think it depends on how much we will
align T with ECMA 1st edition. In the current situation I'm little bit
in favor of having it required. But for example if ISO dates are removed
and more alignments to ECMA 1st edition are made, then distinction will
be so small that it could be just optional one.

Ideally, version attribute will be required if T document is not at the
same time ECMA 1st edition document. For documents that are both T and
ECMA 1st edition, it could be optional. The question is how such
behaviour define in IS 29500 which knows nothing about ECMA 1st ed.

It is hard to judge those things isolated. But at the same time it is
hard to proceed in ISO process with complex changes.

			Jirka

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka at kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 258 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20090612/20a4a3a5/attachment.pgp>