[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
K. Ari Krupnikov wrote:
> Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu> writes:
>>At 4:25 AM -0400 4/16/04, Gerald Bauer wrote:
>>>I wrote up the compact syntax study after reading
>>>up on the compact (non-XML) syntax for Relax NG - a
>>>schema language for XML. See http://www.relaxng.org
>>>for details. In case of Relax NG the compact non-XML
>>>syntax clearly beats the XML syntax.
>>
>>A lot of people feel that way. I don't though. I personally find the
>>XML syntax to be significantly easier to read and understand than the
>>RELAX NG compact syntax.
>
> I can second that. It's good that James gave us two alternatives, but
> every time I have to read RNC, I have to go back and check what the
> symbols mean. Admittedly, I don't read a lot of RNC, or I would have
> learned the syntax. But as a causal user, I find the XML syntax a
> better trade-off between "self-describing markup" and ease of
> authoring. I doubt Aunt Trudie is a less causal user than I am :=)
In my experience, once you're familiar with RELAX NG, the compact syntax becomes natural
-- to the point that you don't want to live without it. In fact, I suspect that any RNG
aficionados would much prefer RNC and can't go back to the XML syntax for one reason: It's
much quicker to develop schemas by hand, once you have RNG in you back pocket. And
twice-blessed by Trang, which can translate RNC to DTD, RNG, or XML Schema, you don't get
yourself painted in a corner. Except there is one problem: At a given point you are
addicted. Strangely, though, all the RNC detox centers are empty. %^}
Mike
|
