• To: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
• Subject: Re: ConciseXML arguments
• From: "m batsis" <mbatsis@n...>
• Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:21:40 +0200
• Cc: Mike Plusch <mplusch@c...>, xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <E18adKg-0002JW-00@c...>
• Organization: Netsmart S.A., Greece
• References: <00e201c2bfe3$9118d3c0$6601a8c0@n...> <E18adKg-0002JW-00@c...>
• Reply-to: mbatsis@n...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130

Hi Alaric,

Alaric B. Snell wrote:
> Use elements for everything and have no distinction between 
> properties-of-this-object and nested-object :-)


Wisest suggestion I've heard for some time. I also have extended DOM and 
SAX APIs in my every day work, usually making no distinctions between

<elem>
   <attribute>value</value>
</elem>

and

<elem attribute="value"/>


IMHO, distinctions on childnodes should only take place on
multi-value VS single-value children (pretty much like LDAP), not 
elements VS attribute nodes. It makes the tree much easier to navigate 
whithout ruining the semantics, but then again that just works for me. I 
must admit I am also dedicated to certain practices (i.e. no unqualified 
  attributes).

Going back to lurker mode now :-)

Manos

• References:
  • ConciseXML arguments
    • From: "Mike Plusch" <mplusch@c...>
  • Re: ConciseXML arguments
    • From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Can XML Schemas do this?
• Next by Date: Re: Adam Bosworth Article - what does"directaccess"m ean?
• Previous by thread: Re: ConciseXML arguments
• Next by thread: Re: ConciseXML arguments
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread