David,
With all due respect, the XML schema in v1.0 was normative.
Before the decision was made to go with SOAP 1.1 as the
underlying protocol, we did have a non-normative XML Schema
version of the normative DTD, but the adoption of SOAP
changed all of that and the XML schema for our ebXML
SOAP extension elements became, of necessity, normative
(and we had to drop the DTD because SOAP doesn't support
DTDs).
The schema needs to be normative IMO.
Cheers,
Chris
David Fischer wrote:
> Doug,
>
> No, we don't have to ratify both the text and the schema. The v1.0 group
> validated only the text with an EXAMPLE schema in an appendix. I suggest, we
> should follow that path. All we have to ratify is the text.
>
> I am looking for, but have not yet found, an example of a standard in which code
> takes precedent over the words. Is there such a thing? All the ones I have
> looked at so far are specifically the reverse.
>
> Perhaps we should pull the schema out of the spec and have it as a separate,
> non-normative document?
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
>
>