On Fri Dec 9 16:44:23 2011, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 12/9/11 9:24 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Thu Dec 8 23:13:38 2011, Matthew A. Miller wrote:
>> I'd like to point out that all of our XML Schemas are
non-normative.
>> They're provided for informational use, and ought not be
considered
>> the absolute record of authority.
>
> What follows is my understanding; we should probably have this
> documented somewhere (a Tao Of XSF XEP?):
>
> - The schemas in XEPs are not normative.
> - We do, however, try to keep them aligned properly with the
text, and
> will accept bug reports with gratitude.
> - The schemas in RFCs *are* normative.
> - The IETF does, however, accept errata should they not match
the text
> or the intent.
>
> So in both cases, we'd expect the schemas to be right, and welcome
> fixes; technically, though, there's a distinction in normativeness
> (normativity?) between RFC and XEP.
RFC 6120 says:
The following schemas formally define various namespaces used in
this
document, in conformance with [XML‑SCHEMA]. Because validation of
XML
streams and stanzas is optional, these schemas are not normative
and are
provided for descriptive purposes only.
I sit corrected - I'd assumed that the normal status quo of the IETF
held with those.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
