"Terseness is of minimal importance." XML is verbose. Element heavy RELAX NG
is verbose. I hope our syntax is clear and immediate if verbose. On
principle, I prefer clear and verbose over terse and arcane.
To me this syntax is fine and dandy:
<optional>
<attribute ..></attribute>
<optional>
I wish for:
<define name="commonAttributes">
<optional>
<attribute ..></attribute>
<attribute ..></attribute>
<attribute ..></attribute>
<attribute ..></attribute>
<attribute ..></attribute>
...
<optional>
</define>
based on the same principle, but I am ignorant of any processing
entanglements this might introduce.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Murata Makoto [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 12:30 AM
To:
Subject: Issue: are <optional>, <oneOrMore>, <zeroOrMore> verbose?
Currently, to declare optional attributes, we write
<optional>
<attribute ..>
</attribute>
<optional>
To declare a collection of many optional attributes, we write
<define name="commonAttributes">
<optional>
<attribute ..>
</attribute>
<optional>
<optional>
<attribute ..>
</attribute>
<optional>
...
<optional>
<attribute ..>
</attribute>
<optional>
</define>
Isn't this verbose?
Quite a few people in the XML Schema WG think that elements for */+/? are
too verbose and have chosen "maxOccurs"" and minOccurs". RELAX Core has
chosen
"occurs".
Cheers,
Makoto
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to:
