Re: minutes from ER teleconference 20010219

John Cowan wrote:

> What I thought I was supposed to do, and what I have done[1], was to request
> the TREX TC to assign an FPI for the "TREX Pattern for TREX", which is
> analogous to the XML Schema for XML Schemas.  There is no DTD for TREX
> as such.
> 
> The FPI I have proposed is:
> 
>         -//OASIS::TC::TREX//TEXT TREX Pattern for TREX//EN//1.0
> 
> TEXT is the appropriate document class for TREX patterns, since they
> are document instances.
> 
> That done, we can add the result to our "Informal list of well-known
> public identifiers."  Of course, other people who create TREX
> patterns are then free to assign FPIs to them.
> 
> This is quite separate from my proposal to use an "urn:publicid:" URI
> as the TREX namespace name.
> 
> TREX does not define any way for a document to refer to a TREX pattern
> that can be used to validate it, so there is no issue similar to
> the xsi:schemaLocation issue.
> 
> I hope this clears everything up.
> 
> ==
> 
> [1]http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/trex/200102/msg00032.html

This is indeed the sort of thing I intended; thanks for the proposal. It
looks fine to me as a recommendation for a TREX schema FPI.

Lauren