On 12/9/11 9:46 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > 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.
I don't think there is a normal status quo at the IETF regarding the normativity of schemas. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
