xml-dev - Re: Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

At 09:51 PM 10/12/00 +0800, Rick JELLIFFE wrote:
>So would people be happier with
>  * a much more comprehensive Primer

That would certainly help.

>  * splitting the Structures draft into two or three parts that were
>      more self contained

I'd love to see that - among other things, it would help make the various
proposals for subsetting more coherent.  

While it's less of a problem on the datatypes end, it might also be useful
to describe simple usage of datatypes - minus facets, for instance.

>  * a much terser algorithmic/logical treatment of the subject, less
>     comprehensible to Joe Database but smaller and more precise

Given that XML 1.0 provides a formal grammar and options for subverting it
in the text (options like not loading external resources), I'd be concerned
that a straight logic version might not be compatible with the full
version, but it would be useful to one class of spec user, certainly.

>  * a rewrite of structures based on the concrete syntax rather than
>      having the abstract components first

This is the one I hear most often at conferences, typically from the
subset-oriented folks.

>Knowing some specifics might be helpful.  
>
>Even knowing at what point you become confused might help: I know 
>paragraph clarification is not Simon's preferred way, but it is
>not a waste of time.  

It may not be a waste of time, but it makes me feel like I'm putting
band-aids on a major wound and no more.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books