Making RELAX NG schemas normative rather than non-normative

[MURATA Makoto]

Rick,

I am puzzled.  Frankly, are you serious?

2011/3/21 rjelliffe <rjelliffe at allette.com.au>:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:33:01 +0100, Jirka Kosek <jirka at kosek.cz> wrote:
>  > 3. normative W3C XML schema, normative RELAX NG schema
>>
>>   - compromise which can make everybody happy
>
>
> How can they both be normative when they may contradict at the edges?

If there are conflicts, neither are correct.  The same as the contradiction
between XSD and prose.  We also have conflicts between schemas in the
spec and electronic schemas.

> Not contradict in the sense of not allowing any documents that are valid
> under both, but contradict in the sense that some documents allowed by one
> will not be allowed by the other. Implementers will presumably choose one or
> the other, but not test with both.

Of course, neither prose, XSD, nor RNG can capture all restrictions.
Implementors
have to respect all of them.

> (And if a common subset of features is used, so that they express identical
> markup languages, why is there any need to have both as normative, when it
> would be just an different syntax?)

Common subset makes no sense.


> I have not kept up with details of the current production system, but have
> we/could we moved over to an interleaved system for maintenance?:

I do not think that merging makes life very easier.  It might but only
slightly.
Merging schemas in the spec and electronic schemas make tons
of differences.


Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake,

Makoto