• To: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
• Subject: Re: An unclear point with W3C XML 1.0 Specification
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 12:40:49 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <41DD8E05.6030807@o...>
• References: <20050106042113.CF2B828C04D@m...> <1104986792.41dcc2a835b87@65.39.203.11> <41DCDC1C.7090906@r...> <1105004014.41dd05ee138a6@65.39.203.11> <41DD8E05.6030807@o...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206)

Bob Foster wrote:
> The file would be even smaller if written with attributes, that is, in XML.

It should be noted though that putting human-readable descriptions in 
attributes is by and large considered to be extremely poor vocabulary 
design.

>  >     <product_item>
>  >       <part_description>3 1/2" Spanner</part_description>
>  >     </product_item>

-- 
Robin Berjon
   Research Scientist
   Expway, http://expway.com/

• References:
  • An unclear point with W3C XML 1.0 Specification
    • From: "Collin Hsu" <collin@w...>
  • Re: An unclear point with W3C XML 1.0 Specification
    • From: david.lyon@c...
  • Re: An unclear point with W3C XML 1.0 Specification
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
  • Re: An unclear point with W3C XML 1.0 Specification
    • From: david.lyon@c...
  • Re: An unclear point with W3C XML 1.0 Specification
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Where are XML types ?
• Next by Date: Re: XML Compression (Was RE: An unclear pointwith W3C XML 1.0 Specification)
• Previous by thread: Re: An unclear point with W3C XML 1.0 Specification
• Next by thread: Re: An unclear point with W3C XML 1.0 Specification
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread