• From: Frank Manola <fmanola@a...>
• To: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
• Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:03:00 -0400

Roger--

It should be obvious that your examples don't contradict what Michael said.  How do you know that, if the W3C should manage to come up with a shorter (but just as adequate;  and how do you measure that?) specification for XML Schema 1.1, more people wouldn't read it?  

On Sep 24, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Costello, Roger L. wrote:

> Michael Kay wrote:
> 
>> Being too careful can make things worse, because the longer and more 
>> formal the spec, the fewer people will read it.
> 
> Apparently the W3C does not agree.  Consider:
> 
>      - The XML Schema 1.1 specification is 380 pages
>         and  is formally written.
> 
>      - The XSLT 3.0 specification is 530 pages
>        and  is formally written.
> 
> 
> /Roger
> 

• References:
  • What techniques do you employ to ensure that your data is preciselyand unambiguously specified?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: What techniques do you employ to ensure that your datais precisely and unambiguously specified?
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
  • RE: What techniques do you employ to ensure that yourdata is precisely and unambiguously specified?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>