RE: XML into SQL and out again
Basically, I concur with Joseph. One can use attributes for fields, certainly, and that will produce a compact instance. It will also result in a much simpler schema should one have to write one, but the restrictions on what one can express in attributes viz a vis types and structure also means the schema is not doing very much useful work. It can also limit the use of the instance particulary with regards to extensibility. One can consider the instance also in terms of broader contexts. What I find more and more is that if an XML instance is dumped at all from a relational system, the odds are good that it isn't being roundtripped back to the same system; it is going elsewhere, perhaps to another relational system, or even to the browser. This can mean that one has to provide more than the original table did, for example, alternative representations of say timestamps, personnel numbers, and so on. In this case, one begins to need the structural powers of elements. I seldom see the relational data dumped precisely as it was used in the relational table (and one has to account for nulls). So best practice, meaning, this is not a one off, tends to be as Joseph describes it. Elements are generally better. len -----Original Message----- From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@b...] <Quote> whether to use attribute or element based tagging here.. </Quote> IMHO, this should not be an "or" type of choice - elements should be used to represent data, attributes to qualify (modify) metadata. In terms of english, one may think (in a very basic sense) of attributes as adjectives, and elements as nouns. Kind Regards, Joe Chiusano Booz | Allen | Hamilton
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format