W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2004

sXBL: Schema fragments (was: Re: Comments on 1st sXBL Working Draft)

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
Message-ID: <41ae5f6e.655949505@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:03 UTC