[relax-ng] Proposal: remove annotations from the compact syntax

[John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

Despite all of James's hard work on getting the compact-syntax annotations
to work correctly and not be too ugly, I think they should go.

*) They make the definition of conformance double-jointed.  Instead of just
   saying that compact-syntax schemas should work just like equivalent
   XML-syntax schemas, we are stuck with saying that annotations should
   be *converted* correctly, since the effect of either kind of annotation
   on a strictly conforming RNG processor is nil.

*) They are no substitute for coming up with a proper compact syntax for
   RNG variants like RelaxNGCC or ooRELAXNG (I hope I have the caps in
   the right places).  What users will want is an integrated syntax for
   such extensions, not just an all-purpose kludge whose semantics may
   in certain cases be incorrect.

*) They make the BNF definition of the compact syntax much harder to read,
   since they are basically clutter but have to be handled separately in
   almost every location.

*) They make the formal definition in the Appendix much more complicated
   and likely to contain bugs.

*) They are still ugly.  :-)

None of this is an argument against translating the ## comments into
a:documentation elements, which is a Good Thing and should stay.

-- 
John Cowan                              <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              http://www.reutershealth.com
                Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes,
                Set anz totz pleinz ad ested in Espagnes.