- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:19:40 +0000
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Norman Walsh writes:
> Your humble editor really vacillates over the question of whether to
> separate the conceptual material about each component (Section 3) from
> the syntactic discussion (Section 4.2).
>
> Here's a short test of a few components combined together. Better?
> Worse? Stop tinkering, it's not that important?
Worse. Makes the first pass through the document grind to a halt at
the first component. The good thing about the non-combined format,
that you can read it quickly through section 3 and get a sense of the
language, is lost.
Compromise suggestion: include _one_ _short_ example of the the XML
representation at the end of each subsection of the current
(non-combined) format's section 3.
ht
- --
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFionskjnJixAXWBoRApquAJ977FLZWGdQ2IO05Fy44S/neQUguwCcDF9H
96bbcFdharcQ8kB8ick5ZGo=
=6RhM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 21 December 2006 13:21:08 UTC