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

[Joe English <jenglish@flightlab.com>]

Rick JELLIFFE wrote:
>
> So would people be happier with
>   * a much more comprehensive Primer
>   * splitting the Structures draft into two or three parts that were
>      more self contained
>   * a much terser algorithmic/logical treatment of the subject, less
>      comprehensible to Joe Database but smaller and more precise
>   * a rewrite of structures based on the concrete syntax rather than
>       having the abstract components first

I'd be much happier with approach (3): a terse,
formal specification.  Section 5 ("Formal Model for RDF")
in the RDF M&S REC and most of the XPATH spec are good examples.

Approach (1), a comprehensive Primer, is no doubt a good
thing too, but it should IMHO be a separate document.
Including too many explanatory examples tends to clutter
up specifications and makes them harder to navigate.
The target audience will only need to go through
the tutorial material once or twice, but may need to
revisit the meat of the spec again and again for 
years to come.


--Joe English

  jenglish@flightlab.com