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

[Miloslav Nic <nicmila@idoox.com>]

> >
> > Rick JELLIFFE wrote:
> >
> > > So would people be happier with
> > >   * a much more comprehensive Primer
> >
> > I agree with Miloslav on this one. The primer is a stop-gap and if you
> > fixed the spec, you wouldn't need it. I think a better idea would be to
> > mix the primer with the regular spec (see Examples, below).
> 

> 
> Therefore, my suggestion to pitch the primer now strikes me as idiotic
> -- in fact, it's the ideal situation and provides material to get people
> going, which is exactly what they need. Similarly, my suggestion to
> merge the primer into the structures spec strikes me as equally idiotic
> -- all it will do is make the structures spec harder to use as reference
> material, as somebody pointed out last week.
> 

> 
> Lapsing towards early senility,
> 

I did not want to get rid of the primer. (I realize that my last note
could be read like this).
I wanted to express my opinion that the primer should not be >100 pages
long and to cover everything.


In my view the primer should introduce the concepts and demonstrate the
basic usage on relevant examples.
Then an interested and experienced reader should be able read the spec
and to find there answers to most 
of his/her questions. The problem is that with XML Schema Part I  the
standard is an extremely difficult to orient in. 

I have read the standard several times and still have severe problems to
find things I am interested in.
I do not mean the simple one, as how to declare an element and so on.
But for the more involved questions
I just cannot find the answer and if I  do I am still not sure if I am
correct. 


>In some cases, the ground covered by the spec is conceptually simple
>enough that a short introduction/overview in the spec gives the reader
>enough information to wade through the details. The XSLT and XML specs
>are good examples of this (XSLT especially).
 
I had some correspondence about XSLT from which it seems that XSLT is
not as conceptually simple as it seems to you. I would even claim that
in
comparison with the parts of XML Schema I already more thoroughly
understand XSLT concepts
are substantially more difficult. But this depends very heavily 
on the reader background. 






> --
> Ronald Bourret
> Programming, Writing, and Training
> XML, Databases, and Schemas
> http://www.rpbourret.com

-- 
******************************************
<firstName> Miloslav </firstName>    
<surname>   Nic      </surname>     

<mail>    nicmila@idoox.com    </mail>   
<support> http://www.zvon.org  </support>
<zvonMailingList> 
    http://www.zvon.org/index.php?nav_id=4 
</zvonMailingList>