Re: [docbook] Ruminations on the future of DocBook

[Jirka Kosek <jirka at kosek dot cz>]

Tobias Reif wrote:

> I mean that no feature of DocBook should rely on any feature from any 
> specific schema lang, and that no single specific schema lang should be 
> normatively referenced in any DocBook spec.

Relax NG is only tool which can be used to formally and precisely 
describe syntax of DocBookNG.

Of course you can describe document type and all its content models in 
prose, in human readable text. But this will be very verbose and very 
hard to use description.

As Relax NG doesn't have features like attribute defaulting its usage 
has no sideeffects and you don't need process RelaxNG grammar in order 
to process DocBook (however this is not true for DTD). But there 
definitively should be formal description of DocBookNG grammar, this 
formal description should be normative and Relax NG is the most suitable 
tool for this task at these days.

					Jirka

P.S. I notices that I'm using DocBookNG instead Norm's DocBook V.next 
label. But I mean the same.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek  	
  e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz
  http://www.kosek.cz

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature