compact syntax (was: Re: [office] OpenDocument TC coordination callminutes 2007-08-13=

[Lars Oppermann <Lars.Oppermann@Sun.COM>]

Hi Bruce,

Apropos compact syntax... Although I am currently not really fluent at 
it - because we use the xml syntax in our spec - It may actually be 
worth considering migrating the spec to use the compact syntax, as it is 
indeed much more palatable. I don't think that this would impact our 
nice automatic extraction process, which allows us to have a common 
document for the schema and the specification text. After all, 
converting between the two representations is an isomorphism.

What do others think about this?

Bests,
Lars

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> Just a hint: MUCH easier to read and write RNG using the compact syntax.
> 
> Here's an example of validation of child elements conditioned on an 
> attribute.
> 
> start = element doc { foo | bar }
> 
> foo = attribute type { "foo" }, element x { text }+
> bar = attribute type { "bar" }, element y { text }+