Re: DAVENPORT: IDL markup from XMLspec DTD

["Eve L. Maler" <elm@arbortext.com>]

At 03:43 PM 6/5/99 -0700, Terry Allen wrote:
>Eve forwarded markup for IDL and EBNF from the XMLspec DTD for which
>she is maintainer.  I've finally gotten to the documentation for that
>DTD and to thinking about what would be entailed in adopting these
>pieces of it.
>
>On the issue of subject matter, I'm all for EBNF but leery of IDL
>(and for the reason Eve gave, that IDL markup may get us too far
>into modelling rather than documenting).  EBNF is used to document
>XML specs these days (whether for good or evil), so to me it fits
>within Docbook's domain.
>
>But adopting a module maintained by another organization, which is
>subject to change (the module) and which is not a model of openness
>(the organization) and suffers interference from the staff (look
>for comments including "Dan" in Eve's documentation) poses some
>issues of process I'd like to discuss at the next meeting of the TC
>(August in Montreal) before we make a decision.
>
>Eve, has thought been given to breaking out these IDL and EBNF
>sections as modules that could be maintained separately, perhaps
>even in some other institutional context?
>
>regards, Terry

The IDL model was originally a module supplied by Gavin Nicol.  He allowed
me to incorporate it into the body of XMLspec, so that it will be
maintained there, but it could be done as a separate module.  At first
XMLspec did have modules, but it became too much of a hassle in the early
days of XML spec editing.  Now that the infrastructure is starting to catch
up, I'm willing (if the existing XMLspec users are willing) to break things
up if that's warranted.

The EBNF model is so in-between (it has presentational and modeling
components) that I'm not sure it really serves the need sufficiently for a
broader audience, though.  I'd want us to make sure we want it in DocBook
before I break it out of XMLspec.

	Eve