DOCBOOK: Re: docbook xml.schema

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_Glorieux?=]

> | Probably nice, you are a master of XML style. But is it stable ?
Should
> | I use <xs:redefine/> like on an other official declared schema ?
> 
> If you're using it, and your tool supports redefine, go for it. I
> can't promise the schema is stable before it's official (which is most
> likely to occur at the next release) but I don't think it's going to
> change in any dramatic way.

        Is this the one under CVS or should I generate it with the last
trang?
        Anyway, thanks for the answer. I can't exactly say that tools
understand xs:redefine (spy seems sometimes, if there's not too much
inherited mixed contents), but isn't it the right way to publish an
official schema close to docbook?
        For real life, a shorter schema for each root element appears me
better (generation probably possible), especially when there are
different jobs (bibliography, article for redactors, toc for editors,
perhaps more; that will be the case in this organisation).
        But you have more experience than me on those kinds of projects.
Any advice welcome.