On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Michael Ludwig <> wrote:
> So yes, it is XML, but no, it is not easily readable, or immediately
> useful. And that's why I fail to see the reason why XML syntax was
> desired in the first place.
Personally speaking, I think having an XML syntax for XSD was a good
choice. Trying to add features like simple and complex types, type
derivation etc may get quite clumsy, if they were tried to be defined
in a flat DTD like syntax.
Having a XML syntax for XSD, makes easy comprehension for people to
understand a particular schema, as it's hierarchical. I personally
find hierarchical specification for most of the things, easy to
understand.
On the other hand, I also find flat (line oriented formats)
specifications like EBNF to be quite successful. Of course, DTDs were
also successful as a starter to XML Schema technology :)
--
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi
