• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Penance for misspent attributes
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 04:18:24 +0000
• In-reply-to: <1021590681.17392.6227.camel@l...>
• References: <1021562444.984.6178.camel@l...> <0dr7eugjkt5r2pm1rltvguomvra107apgm@4...> <1021590681.17392.6227.camel@l...>

"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...> wrote:
| On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 14:34, Arjun Ray wrote:

|> The basic lesson: Do not use attributes to *analyse* wholes into parts. 
| 
| Yes!  A very nice way to describe the distinction.

Unfortunately, this goes against some significant memes in the XML world.
Consider, for instance, this specimen of appalling cluelessness, which was
no doubt well received nonetheless:

 http://www.w3.org/TandS/QL/QL98/pp/microsoft-serializing.html

Note, in particular, the glib use of "canonical" - nice, friendly, warm,
feelgood vibes there - to predispose the reader to the um, "correct view".

• References:
  • Penance for misspent attributes
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Penance for misspent attributes
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: Penance for misspent attributes
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML Database vs. OO Database
• Next by Date: Re: a standards story
• Previous by thread: Re: Penance for misspent attributes
• Next by thread: Re: Penance for misspent attributes
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread