Hi Andrew, In principle I agree. I speak only as one of the poor sods who sometimes has to visually check the .opt template schemas and which use the same format. I know - get a tool :-) But even in something like XMLSpy it can get hard to see the clinical wood for the occurences trees.
Ian Dr Ian McNicoll office +44 (0)1536 414 994 fax +44 (0)1536 516317 mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 skype ianmcnicoll ian.mcnicoll at oceaninformatics.com Clinical Modelling Consultant,?Ocean Informatics, UK openEHR Clinical Knowledge Editor www.openehr.org/knowledge Honorary Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL BCS Primary Health Care ?www.phcsg.org On 11 November 2011 14:29, Andrew Patterson <andrewpatto at gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/11/2011 1:16 AM, Ian McNicoll wrote: >> >> Apart from the size issue, readability is a particular problem because >> of the verbosity of the current XML schema. >> > I'm not convinced that human readability should matter too much > (especially seeing ADL is meant to be the human readable format > - if we have readable XML can we ditch the ADL??) > > But I'm not passionately opposed to it or anything :) Just when it > was brought up in the past many moons ago I thought we had other > more pressing issues. But if the change is happening as part of > an update to 1.5 then I'm all for it. > > Andrew > >
