- To: 'Jeff Tash' <tash@f...>, xml-dev@l...
- Subject: RE: A standard approach to glueing together reusableXM L fragments in prose?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:11:13 -0500
---- Start SpamAssassin results
9.20 points, 7 required;
* 1.2 -- BODY: Message is 0% to 10% HTML
* 1.0 -- BODY: HTML included in message
* 7.0 -- BODY: HTML with embedded plugin object
---- End of SpamAssassin results
--- Begin Message ---
- To: 'Jeff Tash' <tash@f...>, xml-dev@l...
- Subject: RE: A standard approach to glueing together reusableXM L fragments in prose?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:11:13 -0500
Not exactly. One has to decide when mapping out of an information system
of a different
type using XML which properties one must preserve losslessly, and then the
choice of
elements vs attributes is not arbitrary. I gave an example of that in a
different email
when comparing object oriented design where fields can have objects to XML
design
where attributes cannot have elements. At first, these appear to be
incompatible, then
pushing the containment relationship of fields and objects to the elements
and the
description up one metalevel,
<object><field><object></object></field></object>,
one can make it work. Going in the other direction and keeping the mapping
of fields to elements introduces microparsing and hiding types inside the
attribute values. It is semantically messy, but that is the choice some
make
to keep the XML encoding looking as much like the object oriented encoding
as possible.
Loose, yes, but not arbitrary. One does have to understand, for example,
the
structural constraints of XML.
len
--- End Message ---
|
Cart
