Given sufficient technical resources, you can have a very terse, precise
specification and tutorials and "annotated specifications" that provide an
introductory path to the specification. In the long run, reading a book on
Z, a book on XML and a Z-based XML spec is easier than trying to
reconstruct the ideas in the authors heads based on imprecise prose. It's
not like making an XML parser is a weekend job anyhow!
I'm not arguing in favour of Z in particular, however. I'm arguing in
favour of some form of precise formalism. One approach might be to come up
with a vague mental model, build non-normative formal descriptions to make
sure that the ideas are sound and complete, and then transliterate into
English.
> It must also be rememembered that SGML from which XML sprung
> has very complex interplays between parsing modes, logical and
> physical structures. Some of this was bound to leak over into
> XML.
That is certainly true. If we could go back in time and specify SGML in
terms of formalisms, it wouldn't be such a hairy language today. Even the
relatively simple grove formalism has lain bare the weirdness in SGML (but
also highlighted some deep and beautiful symmetries).
Hind sight is 20/20.
Paul Prescod - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco
"The new revolutionaries believe the time has come for an aggressive
move against our oppressors. We have established a solid beachhead
on Friday. We now intend to fight vigorously for 'casual Thursdays.'
-- who says America's revolutionary spirit is dead?