Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
K. Ari Krupnikov wrote: > Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...> writes: >>At 4:25 AM -0400 4/16/04, Gerald Bauer wrote: >>>I wrote up the compact syntax study after reading >>>up on the compact (non-XML) syntax for Relax NG - a >>>schema language for XML. See http://www.relaxng.org >>>for details. In case of Relax NG the compact non-XML >>>syntax clearly beats the XML syntax. >> >>A lot of people feel that way. I don't though. I personally find the >>XML syntax to be significantly easier to read and understand than the >>RELAX NG compact syntax. > > I can second that. It's good that James gave us two alternatives, but > every time I have to read RNC, I have to go back and check what the > symbols mean. Admittedly, I don't read a lot of RNC, or I would have > learned the syntax. But as a causal user, I find the XML syntax a > better trade-off between "self-describing markup" and ease of > authoring. I doubt Aunt Trudie is a less causal user than I am :=) In my experience, once you're familiar with RELAX NG, the compact syntax becomes natural -- to the point that you don't want to live without it. In fact, I suspect that any RNG aficionados would much prefer RNC and can't go back to the XML syntax for one reason: It's much quicker to develop schemas by hand, once you have RNG in you back pocket. And twice-blessed by Trang, which can translate RNC to DTD, RNG, or XML Schema, you don't get yourself painted in a corner. Except there is one problem: At a given point you are addicted. Strangely, though, all the RNC detox centers are empty. %^} Mike
|
