• From: Edward Loh <EdwardLoh@e...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 00:21:45 -0400

I agree with Ron wholeheartedly and I just want to add one more reason to
his last point.

Ronald Bourret wrote:

> Rick JELLIFFE wrote:
> >
> > The prime readers of XML Schemas specification is implementers of XML

...Snipped...

> My point is that comprehensibility is critical, and that the lack of it
> is affecting things that are critical to them, such as reader input,
> implementation experience, and rapid acceptance.
>

Both comprehensibility and *clairity* of writting are critical because (in
addition to Ron's reasons) clear and concise spec minimizes room for
individual intepretation by implementers of all kinds.  And that, I believe,
is one of the fundamental philosophy of XML.

Regards,

Edward

• References:
  • Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?
    • From: Joseph Kesselman/Watson/IBM <keshlam@u...>
  • Re: Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?
    • From: tpassin@h...
  • Re: Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
  • Re: Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?
    • From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>
  • Re: Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: RELAX to ISO
• Next by Date: Re: Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?
• Previous by thread: Re: Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?
• Next by thread: Re: Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread