[relaxng-user] "Converting DTDs (and DTD developers) to RELAX NG schemas" paper

[John Cowan]

David Carlisle scripsit:

> What is the current feeling amongst Relax MG practitioners, is it OK to use
> the compact syntax as a normative specification of a grammar?

Absolutely.  What is more, since you actually use it to write the grammar,
it should be normative for that reason, so that if there is any (all too
easy!) screwup in keeping the XML version up to date, it won't bite you
in the ass.

FWIW, the XHTML 2 draft makes the RNG, WXS, and DTD versions all normative,
though currently only the RNG is supplied.

-- 
John Cowan  jcowan at reutershealth.com  www.reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan
Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy.  Dennett and Bennett are well-known.
Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett.
There is also one Dummett.  By their works shall ye know them.  However, just as
no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly
known by his works.  Indeed, Bummett does not exist.  It is part of the function
of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him.