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.

p

Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
> Consider the following:
>
> <sequence>
> <element name="a"/>
> <element name="b" />
> <element name="c" />
> <element name="d" type="anyURI" />
> <element name="e" maxOccurs="unbounded" />
> <element name="f" minOccurs="0"/>
> <element name="g" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
> .....
>
> It says: "elements a, b, c, d occur exactly once; e is mandatory and
> repeatable, f is optional (not repeatable), g is optional and repeatable;
> all are type string except d which is type anyURI."
>
> And consider:
>
> <sequence>
> <element name="a" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1" type="string">
> <element name="b" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1" type="string"/>
> <element name="c" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1" type="string"/>
> <element name="d" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1" type="anyURI" />
> <element name="e" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded" type ="string" />
> <element name="f" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1" type="string"/>
> <element name="g" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" type="string"/>
> .....
>
> It says exactly the same thing. Which one is more readable? I.e. which
> one of the two styles better facilitates comprehension?
>
> Why would you want to say it in the second form when you can say it in the
> first?
>
> Obviously my perspective is a bit different, that human readability is a
> critical element in the ultimate success of these schemas -- Let the
> machines do the hard work.
>
>
> --Ray
>