Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
danny666@v... (Danny Ayers) writes: >I'm curious Simon (or anyone) about how you would go about improving >the representation of keys & values (or modelling when the solution >seems to suggest keys & values). Most of the key/value situations I've seen have fixed sets of keys, or at least as fixed as most markup vocabularies. So instead of: <add key="a" value="1"/> <add key="b" value="2"/> I'd prefer something like: <add> <a>1</a> <b>2</b> </add> Even where the keys aren't fixed, I still prefer this model. It leaves open the prospect of structured values, which are pretty common in the hashmaps I work with, and it's not that much harder to process. It's harder to write a schema for this if you're one of those people who insist on nailing everything to the floor, but I guess I have little sympathy for those folks. If the information is flexible, the schema should keep up, and hiding structure in attribute values seems like a lousy hack given XML's focus on labeled structures. But hey, if it's just a serialization, why should anyone care? -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
