Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 11/16/13 9:05 AM, David Sheets wrote: Uche did ask such a thing, with "After you." It did not appear to go over well."Refute" was the wrong choice of words, then. "Refute" usually asks for a strong demolition, not just a glancing blow. That was why I made the same complaint John just did.If I make an assertion and you respond with "Absolutely not", I expect you to muster a refutation. If you say "Why do you make this claim?", I am more than happy to lay out my argument. In any case, asking for refutation sounds more like a dare than a request for clarification. Is this a Zen koan exercise? There is no general answer. The only answers exist in specific contexts people create.I think you meant to say "Can element omission be used to model optional [data structures]". "Can", of course. Well, sort of. The interesting question isn't "can", but "is it a good idea?". There's no general answer to that - it all depends on what you want to do and in what context.Is it a better idea than using the string "null"? Other solutions include special attributes or a distinct element. Are there still more that are simple to express in XML the Syntax? Does XML lack something that would make using the command string "null" preferable to one of these other options in some context? Thanks, -- Simon St.Laurent http://simonstl.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
