RE: examples in spec?

+1.

This is one of the things that I think keeps the Xquery spec readable, the #
of examples.  And I'm not worried about the spec becoming too large - I wish
schema part 1 and 2 had more examples because I always end up looking at the
primer instead.

Cheers,
Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Tom Jordahl
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 8:10 AM
To: 'Arthur Ryman'; Jean-Jacques Moreau
Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: RE: examples in spec?


  +1

  I am very syntax oriented - show me the angle brackets and I will think
the spec is comprehensible.  Otherwise it will be a bunch of mumbo-jumbo
about an "abstract component model" or something.

  --
  Tom Jordahl
  Macromedia

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com]
  Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 8:43 AM
  To: Jean-Jacques Moreau
  Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana; www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
  Subject: Re: examples in spec?



  I find illustrative examples very helpful in understanding specs. I think
the spec should contain short examples for each construct. The spec should
be self-contained, i.e. not require you to refer to the primer. The primer
should contain an extended example and perhaps clarify subtle features.

  Arthur Ryman


       "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
        Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
        10/03/2003 05:29 AM


                To:        Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
                cc:        www-ws-desc@w3.org
                Subject:        Re: examples in spec?





  My recollection is that most examples would be in the primer, Part 1 & 3
  containing only a small number of introductory examples.

  JJ.

  Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

  > I remember we discussed the idea of including some examples
  > (more likely example fragments) in the spec(s). What was the
  > final verdict?
  >
  > Sanjiva.
  >
  >