• From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w...>
• To: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>
• Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 22:23:55 +0100

On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 11:40 +0000, Andrew Welch wrote:

> It's worth adding here, that if you are sax parsing and have to switch
> processing based on some value, then its far easier to do that if its
> an attribute than a child element. 

The more abstract pattern is that Schema has avoided the idea of a
descendent changing the meaning of an element.

"If the paragraph contains footnote references, it's a document-para and
not an abstract-para" is in some ways equivalent to "paragraphs within
the abstract cannot contain footnote references" in a less declarative
sort of way, but generally much more painful to think about in editing
and manipulating and generally processing.

Liam

-- 
this signature temporarily out of order

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Abandon the (mistaken) belief that XML attributesprovide "metadata" and set yourself free to explorecapability-based designs
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• References:
  • Abandon the (mistaken) belief that XML attributes provide"metadata" and set yourself free to explore capability-based designs
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: Abandon the (mistaken) belief that XML attributesprovide "metadata" and set yourself free to explore capability-based designs
    • From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@g...>
  • Re: Abandon the (mistaken) belief that XML attributesprovide "metadata" and set yourself free to explorecapability-based designs
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: Abandon the (mistaken) belief that XML attributesprovide "metadata" and set yourself free to explore capability-based designs
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>