XML Information Set is seeding impenetrable language; reconsi der?

[DuCharme, Robert]

>Would it not be in the interest of the XML community to encourage
>the authors use language that mortals understand (nodes, trees,
>etc)? I don't believe the Information Set in its current
>formulation should be accepted.  Am I alone in this belief?  If
>not, then we might perhaps be able to convince the authors, who
>have otherwise done a fine job, to tidy up the language and the
>connection to DOM.

"Write more clearly" is easy to say, but a vague point for debate, and no
one would argue against it. I would suggest copying one of the more
difficult paragraphs into an xml-dev posting and following it with a
suggested revision. This would propose specific replacement terms and give a
more concrete starting point for discussion of why the authors chose the
terms they did and which proposed replacement terms work better.

>(just look at the current XML Schema document, part 1).

I have one suggestion here: write the whole thing in English! I'll bet the
Vatican has published documents with less latin in them. A given latin term
may be more concise than its English equivalent, but people who don't know
latin shouldn't be shut out of understanding the spec.

semper ubi sub ubi,

Bob DuCharme          www.snee.com/bob           <bob@  
snee.com>  "The elements be kind to thee, and make thy
spirits all of comfort!" Anthony and Cleopatra, III ii

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.