- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:51:56 +0200
- To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
* Robin Berjon wrote: >Micah Dubinko wrote: >> RelaxNG language definition: (in general) please use compact syntax. >> (this is, after all, primarily human-readable information here) > >That's by and large a matter of taste. I don't find RNC particularly >easy to read, though it is more readable than DTD. But part of the >reason we picked RNG was so that people could convert it to RNC if they >wanted to. Please adopt the style used in <http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt>, it's the most readable notation I have come across in a specification and I know from a lot of authors (including myself) that this notation greatly helped them to learn the language. This RelaxNG stuff along with these odd "Expected children" / "Expected context" things is most difficult to access even for me. I agree that it is generally more readable than the parameter entity mess in SVG 1.1 and the odd infoset speak in SOAP 1.2 but it is still far worse than the approach in XSLT 1.0.
Received on Friday, 22 October 2004 19:52:39 UTC