[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [relax-ng] Proposal: remove annotations from the compact syntax
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes, Set anz totz pleinz ad ested in Espagnes.
Powered by eList eXpress LLC