 |
 |
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. 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 >