• From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@g...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:19:48 +0530

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Michael Ludwig <milu71@g...> wrote:
> So yes, it is XML, but no, it is not easily readable, or immediately
> useful. And that's why I fail to see the reason why XML syntax was
> desired in the first place.

Personally speaking, I think having an XML syntax for XSD was a good
choice. Trying to add features like simple and complex types, type
derivation etc may get quite clumsy, if they were tried to be defined
in a flat DTD like syntax.

Having a XML syntax for XSD, makes easy comprehension for people to
understand a particular schema, as it's hierarchical. I personally
find hierarchical specification for most of the things, easy to
understand.

On the other hand, I also find flat (line oriented formats)
specifications like EBNF to be quite successful. Of course, DTDs were
also successful as a starter to XML Schema technology :)



-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi

• References:
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@g...>
  • RE: XML spec and XSD
    • From: "Jim Tivy" <jimt@b...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>
  • RE: XML spec and XSD
    • From: "Jim Tivy" <jimt@b...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@g...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@S...>
  • Re: XML spec and XSD
    • From: Michael Ludwig <milu71@g...>