Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
elharo@m... (Elliotte Rusty Harold) writes: >For what it's worth I don't think you were wrong. I personally find >the RELAX NG XML syntax *much* easier to read, understand, and write >than the compact syntax. Perhaps that's a function of my relative >unfamiliarity with RELAX NG compared to you, but that's the point of >XML's verboseness, isn't it? It's easier for a non-expert to >understand any given format. I think it depends a lot on scale and situation. This was a case where there were lots and lots of parts, entering the information quickly was much easier in the compact form, and teaching yet another XML vocabulary didn't seem like a great idea. With the compact syntax, I was able to walk the schema creator from their spreadsheet to a simple list to the compact syntax with a minimum number of roundabout steps. (Yes, I could also have done something similar with DTDs, but then I would have had to explain entities as something separate from patterns and couldn't have used the data types they'd already chosen.)
|
