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

Re: syntax, model

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: syntax, model
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:14:27 -0700
• In-reply-to: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D1D51681@R...>
• References: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D1D51681@R...>

Dare Obasanjo wrote:

> And I'd rather have a spec written in prose than a schema any day of the week
> .

Having all three is best (formal spec, prose spec, and sample
instances), if they're all available.  But I think I'd still
pick the formal spec if I were forced to choose just one.

There's an issue of quality, too.  A prose spec written by, say, 
James Clark, is often sufficient, whereas one written by, say, 
Dave Winer may not be any more informative than the collection 
of sample instances.

With a formal notation, you can usually count on at least _some_
degree of precision.


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: syntax, model
    • From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>
  • RE: syntax, model
    • From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@v...>

• References:
  • RE: syntax, model
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: syntax, model
• Next by Date: Re: syntax, model
• Previous by thread: Re: syntax, model
• Next by thread: RE: syntax, model
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread