• To: "J. David Eisenberg" <catcode@c...>
• Subject: Re: Non-xml syntax for WXS
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 22:19:28 -0700
• Cc: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>, Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>, xml-dev@l..., "Charles F. Goldfarb" <Charles@X...>
• References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0206292129340.8409-100000@t...>

"J. David Eisenberg" wrote:
> 
>...
> Having a non-XML syntax does make teaching easier in many respects.  I
> found when teaching a beginning XML class that they had less trouble
> understanding DTDs than Relax because DTDs don't look like XML.

Argh. That's exactly what we predicted when "Schemas in XML syntax" was
the rage. They claimed it would be so much easier to teach because the
students wouldn't have to learn "another syntax." Others argued it would
just confuse people with the similarity!

 Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Non-xml syntax for WXS
    • From: "J. David Eisenberg" <catcode@c...>

• References:
  • Re: Non-xml syntax for WXS
    • From: "J. David Eisenberg" <catcode@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Non-xml syntax for WXS
• Next by Date: Re: Non-xml syntax for WXS
• Previous by thread: Re: Non-xml syntax for WXS
• Next by thread: Re: Non-xml syntax for WXS
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread