Re: [relax-ng-comment] Abbreviated compact syntax (Re: Compact syntaxis not compact enough. Why?)

[David Rosenborg <david.rosenborg@pantor.com>]

> 4. In real-world, non-trivial schemas, references to patterns (written using
> a bare name) tend to be much more common that element patterns. (For example
> in the docbook.rng that I use, there are 378 element patterns and 2866 ref
> patterns).   The thing that makes a big difference to the compactness of
> such schemas is the syntax for definitions/references (which is as compact
> as possible in the current syntax) rather than the syntax for element
> patterns.  The current syntax encourages the use of references/definitions,
> which I think is a good thing.

Good point, and with proper syntax highlighting in your favorite editor
the current attribute and element syntax would be easy to spot.

Cheers,
David