Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
John Cowan <jcowan@r...> wrote: | Arjun Ray scripsit: | The practice of the XML community has been overwhelmingly to grant the | GI fundamental importance: fulminating against this sociological fact | will not make it go away. A sociological fact is one thing. Deeming it immutable and more, worthy of sanction in the form of a standard to enforce it, is another. (Also, isn't DSDL in the picture here? Why then is just the current state of only the "XML community" decisive?) |> I suppose I'm also asking for an answer to the issue of "ontology" I |> raised earlier: what are attributes for? | | There simply does not exist any generally accepted view of when attributes | should be used rather than child elements. I note that you dodged the question again. ;-) | Therefore, it is important for a neutrally usable schema language to | support them as identically as possible, I don't see how neutrality is important, unless it is established policy to bless what appears to be current practice, no matter how ill-informed. | excepting the obvious (attributes are unordered and can't contain elements | or other attributes). So, if they are different, why the push for identical treatment? I also note (in view of a recent thread) that it seems to be a common maturation experience to grow from attribute-happy to element-wise. I don't see how making potentially unwise decisions even easier than they are would make experience acquired any less painful.
|
