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. /psa
