Various issues on WG11N173

[David Price]

Pascal,

On "As regards symbols ?, *, +, %, a little explanation in a note at the
begining of P28 would not cost a lot of effort." - neither would peeking at
the definitive XML Spec.  ISO guidelines make the point of telling us not to
repeat things from normative references.  When we write the short form of an
AP AIM we don't repeat the definition of "product" from Part 41 either even
though it would be easy to do in a note. The concern is that there's no end
to what people might want to put in a note. You can't remember what *  and +
mean but others might not understand NMTOKEN while others might not
understand PCDATA or #IMPLIED. You can make a case to repeat the whole XML
Spec because you can't know what each reader can't quite remember.

I'll repeat something I proposed in the P28 project but could never get
agreed... SC4 should publish this part in HTML!!!  Then it could link to the
XML Spec and address issues like this very easily.

Cheers,
David
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Pascal Huau [mailto:pascalhuau at goset.asso.fr]
  Sent: 2001 October 19 14:40
  To: David Price
  Cc: WG11
  Subject: Re: Various issues on WG11N173


  Dave,


  I do not know what the other think but I do not find very satisfactory to
find in P28 examples of elements (e;g. Notation and Entity) that obviously
would have a meaning with respect to the other data in the file but that are
not explained in P28.
  As regards symbols ?, *, +, %, a little explanation in a note at the
begining of P28 would not cost a lot of effort.

  Regards,
  Pascal Huau
  Association GOSET
  107,111 avenue Clemenceau
  92000 Nanterre
  France
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: David Price
    To: WG11
    Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 2:09 PM
    Subject: RE: Various issues on WG11N173


    All,

    A quick response to a few of Pascal's issues:

    1, 2, 11 and 12 - The audience of Part 28 is an implementor who is
fluent in EXPRESS and the XML 1.0 Recommendation. Therefore, repeating the
definitions found in the XML spec for ?, *, +, %, ENTITY, NOTATION, etc. in
the XML syntax is not appropriate info to be included in Part 28.  The XML
Spec is freely available on the Web and, to be frank, if P28 becomes popular
it's more likely the readers won't know EXPRESS than that they won't know
XML.

    Thanks,
    David


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.steptools.com/pipermail/wg11/attachments/20011019/23f70c22/attachment.html