On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 17:53 +0300, Kirill Subbotin wrote: > Tobias Schlitt wrote: > > > Just for curiosity: Why are you using such an EBNF-like format instead > > of a standardized way for describing XML formats, for example > > XML-Schema? We need that later, anyway, so it sounds logical to me to > > use it right from the start. Or am I wrong? > > The reasons were that schemas are harder to read, and too many things were > unclear to > create it. So I've decided to use simplified form to get more responses on > issues. > (but even in this case I'm getting not very much of them) > But now I'm going to create a real scheme, as anyway there is not much > feedback.
In this case you may want to consider using the compact syntax from RelaxNG, which es imho really easy to read: http://relaxng.org/compact-tutorial-20030326.html -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Med vennlig hilsen Kore Nordmann (GPG: 0xDDC70BBB) eZ Components Developer eZ systems Headquaters tel +49 (0) 231-9742-7750 | fax +49 (0) 231-9742-7751 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | eZ systems | ez.no
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Components mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components
