[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: documenting schemas/DTDs

• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: "'xml-dev@i...'" <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 20:45:31 -0800

At 09:45 PM 11/17/99 -0600, W. Eliot Kimber wrote:

>Note that the focus must be on the *documentation*, not the
>declarations. That's because it's the documentation that counts in the
>long run. The declarations are so much syntax. Without the documentation
>the declarations are useless, but with the documentation, the
>declarations can be recreated at will. 

I reproduce Eliot's paragraph in full because it is profoundly true and 
rewards repeated reading.  DTD's and XML Schemas both are *just syntax* 
dammit, and syntax is not interesting.  XML, at the end of the day, is not 
interesting.  Messages that convey meaning are interesting.  Meaning is 
only conveyed by

 (a) running code, or
 (b) human-readable prose.

To generate (a), you have to have (b) first.

End of the story. -Tim

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: documenting schemas/DTDs
    • From: "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@t...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Can't subclass ElementNode
• Next by Date: History
• Previous by thread: Re: documenting schemas/DTDs
• Next by thread: Re: documenting schemas/DTDs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread