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

Re: XSD question

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XSD question
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:49:02 -0400
• In-reply-to: <3F65FE6D.5010503@a...>

ricko@a... (Rick Jelliffe) writes:
>Once a large technology is made from sufficiently intertwined parts,
>there is no way to order an exposition of it such that
>strongly-connected ideas are always close together. Spaghetti doesn't
>want to be free. (At least, "no way" to order the exposition with
>HTML-style pages: maybe WXS needs something more like Nelson's
>transclusion, where you can pull in fragments (without losing their
>context) and embed them into running text, without the maintenance
>penalty of duplicated sections.)   

This is beautifully put, and reflects the same challenges authors face
in explaining specifications as well.  Cross-references are wonderful
things, but immensely frustrating to manage and to read.  

Even simplifying the specifications doesn't always help.  As fond as I
am of clean layering in specifications, that fondness causes me problems
when I want to assume that readers understand the layer on which I'm
building.  Given readers who do know the layers, things are great, but
otherwise there's yet another learning process.

>Indeed, I think that is a forgotten
>rationale for XML over SGML: dumbing down an intertwined technology so
>that it could have a spec straightforward-enough that people could
>conveniently read it.

Yes.  The XML spec was difficult enough when I first encountered it.  I
can't imagine daring to write "SGML: A Primer" at that point, but "XML:
A Primer" was better than plausible.

• References:
  • Re: XSD question
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XSD question
• Next by Date: RE: XSD question
• Previous by thread: Re: XSD question
• Next by thread: RE: XSD question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread