• To: 'James Clark' <jjc@j...>, Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: RE: syntax, model
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:10:29 -0500
• Cc: Joe English <jenglish@f...>, "\"xml-dev@l...\"" <xml-dev@l...>

Sometimes I think people are too young to remember when 
markup was a verb instead of a noun.  They would come 
to us with a set of documents and say, "Write a DTD 
for these." and we would ask, "Are these exhaustive 
examples?" and they would say, "What? Oh, don't worry, 
we can fix it if we find more." and we would and they did.

Not much has changed.

But the tag sprinkling process is a good model of why 
schemas can be treated as emergent controls.

len


From: James Clark [mailto:jjc@j...]

On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 05:25, Dare Obasanjo wrote:

> And I'd rather have a spec written in prose than a schema any day of the
week. 

Perhaps it depends on how readable a schema language it's using ;-) But
seriously, I don't think it's an either/or situation.  I want a spec to
have both prose and a schema.  If it doesn't have any prose, I'm going
to have to guess the semantics; if it doesn't have a schema, it's very
likely I'm going to have to guess some syntactic details.

• Prev by Date: Re: syntax, model
• Next by Date: Re: can you use inheritance (extension) in relax ng?
• Previous by thread: RE: syntax, model
• Next by thread: RE: syntax, model
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread