Robin Wendler wrote:
> Me three. Working with schemas every day, I'm fine with either
> notation, but for someone who /doesn't /work with them every day... just
> say what you mean, don't make them search for an XML schema tutorial.
> At 11:33 AM 9/12/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>> I agree, but then I think that defaulted attributes are one of the
>> annoying features of XML and SGML.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: PREMIS Implementors Group Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Priscilla Caplan
>> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 11:28 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [PIG] opinions on schema style
>> Gee, actually the second is easier for me to read, as a human, because I
>> don't have to look up what the default is.
It's hard to imagine this particular issue arising at all for schemas
expressed in Relax NG; and I feel it takes me a fraction of the time to
get to grips with an RNG schema (XML or compact). I often doubt XML
Schema was designed for or by humans.
People who don't have a need to work with raw XML Schema every day are
much better served by versions formatted specifically for human readers
- like, for example, the OxygenXML schema documenter generates. It's
only an XSLT transformation away. Ideally, the human-readable version of
the Data Dictionary would be generated like that, directly from the
For those who do prefer schemas à la Tartare, don't some XML editors
have a facility for inserting optional default content automagically?
I'm sure I've done that in the past in Oxygen and Emacs, though I can't
now remember how (can anyone remind me?)
\ Richard M Davis
/ Digital Archives Specialist
\ University of London Computer Centre
/ Tel: +44 (0) 20 7692 1350
\ mailto: [log in to unmask]