Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 19:59:50 -0500
At 07:35 PM 11/1/99 -0500, David Megginson wrote:
>Paul Prescod <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Tim Bray wrote:
>> > Note "machine-readable" in the sentence above. At this point in history,
>> > it's the human-readable part of schemas that seem to me to have the
>> > biggest payoffs, because that's what the programmers read before they
>> > write the code that actually does something useful. -Tim
>> Any programmer that reads the prose but doesn't read the schema is bound
>> to make many avoidable assumptions and mistakes.
>Et vice-versa. The only reason that formal languages are less
>ambiguous than natural ones is that they're not capable of saying much
>in the first place.
That last bit is a beautiful statement that sums it all up, though the
pieces above it both have merit.
We need a standard way to get to all of that information, both machine- and
human- readable. Right now, all we have is a way to get a formal
description and a bunch of comments, if we're very lucky.
I'm strongly hoping that both the XML Schemas and XML Packaging efforts
give very high priority to human-readable documentation. I just finished
(yet another) XML book in which I felt every other sentence was "make sure
you document it for _people_, because if you don't, it's just more crap".
XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)