Hi --
The "Normative and non-normative information section" of the spec reads pretty well. I have lots of little, line-edit sorts of nits to suggest when we do the formal review, but for now - here a few things to look at:
- Opening paragraph - would it be appropriate to say that OASIS considers either the HTML or PDF version of the spec to be the normative version?
Basic DITA terminology
- Just curious - is it possible for a document to conform to the spec and still be invalid? I wonder whether "valid" should be in the mix.
- Root elements - *.ditaval docs use <val> as root.
- Root elements - so grammar files are not DITA documents?
DITA module terminology
- "DITA module" should be defined.
Linking and addressing terminology
- "referenced element" - they all need an @id attribute to be referenced.
- ditavalref and coderef specify stand-alone files.